How Psych Sci Informs Teaching of Reading - Rayner Et Al.

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST
HOW PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE INFORMS

THE TEACHING OF READING
Keith Rayner,1 Barbara R. Foorman,2 Charles A. Perfetti,3 David Pesetsky,4
and Mark S. Seidenberg5
1Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Massachusetts;
of Pediatrics and the Center for Academic and Reading Skills, University of Texas-Houston Health Science Center,
Houston, Texas; 3Department of Psychology and the Learning Research and Development Center,
University of Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; 4Department of Linguistics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
Cambridge, Massachusetts; and 5Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, Madison, Wisconsin
2Department
AbstractThis monograph discusses research, theory, and practice relevant to how children learn to read English. After an
initial overview of writing systems, the discussion summarizes
research from developmental psychology on childrens language competency when they enter school and on the nature of
early reading development. Subsequent sections review theories of learning to read, the characteristics of children who do
not learn to read (i.e., who have developmental dyslexia), research from cognitive psychology and cognitive neuroscience
on skilled reading, and connectionist models of learning to
read. The implications of the research findings for learning to
read and teaching reading are discussed. Next, the primary
methods used to teach reading (phonics and whole language)
are summarized. The final section reviews laboratory and
classroom studies on teaching reading. From these different
sources of evidence, two inescapable conclusions emerge: (a)
Mastering the alphabetic principle (that written symbols are
associated with phonemes) is essential to becoming proficient
in the skill of reading, and (b) methods that teach this principle
directly are more effective than those that do not (especially for
children who are at risk in some way for having difficulty
learning to read). Using whole-language activities to supplement phonics instruction does help make reading fun and
meaningful for children, but ultimately, phonics instruction is
critically important because it helps beginning readers understand the alphabetic principle and learn new words. Thus, elementary-school teachers who make the alphabetic principle
explicit are most effective in helping their students become
skilled, independent readers.
easily imagine that it must rank among the simplest skills for a
child to acquire. Yet nothing could be further from the truth.
For many children, learning to read is an extraordinarily effortful task, a long and complicated process that can last for years.
That is the essence of the paradox. How can a skill that feels so
easy to the adult be so difficult for the child to acquire? The
paradox is interesting to the scientist because learning to read
is strikingly different from other sorts of learning.
But the significance of the paradox is more general, in ways
that touch everyone. Literacy is an essential ingredient of success in societies like ours, where so much information is conveyed by the written word. Furthermore, a literate population is
a key to the functioning of these societies. A significant number
of people never achieve the effortless literacy of the skilled
reader. For them, the complex process of learning to read never
came to an end. To help them, as well as children just learning
to read, it is important to understand the source of their difficulty and how to overcome it. To achieve these goals, scientists
need to understand three aspects of the paradox:
INTRODUCTION
4. Appropriate educational practices: What are the best ways

to teach reading?
Learning to read presents a paradox. For an adult who is a

good reader, reading feels so simple, effortless, and automatic
that it is almost impossible to look at a word and not read it.
Reading seems so natural to the literate adult that one could
Address correspondence to Keith Rayner, Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003; e-mail: rayner@psych.umass.edu.
VOL. 2, NO. 2, NOVEMBER 2001
1. The starting point: What are the preconditions for learning

to read? What must a child be able to do in order to learn to
read effectively?
2. The learning process: What is the process of learning to
read? What happens when a person goes from being a nonreader to being a reader?
3. The end point: What does skilled readingthe end point of
the learning processlook like?
As scientists learn more about the starting point, the process,
and the end point of learning to read, they can more effectively
address the vital fourth issue:
These are the central topics with which we are concerned in

this monograph.
The major instructional methods traditionally used to teach
reading have been whole-word and phonics instruction. In
whole-word instruction (also called the look-say method), a
sight vocabulary of 50 to 100 words is taught initially. Subsequent words are also learned as wholes, although not necessarCopyright 2001 American Psychological Society
31
How Psychological Science Informs the Teaching of Reading

ily out of context. In contrast, phonics instruction emphasizes
the relationship between graphemes (printed letters) and phonemes (their associated sounds). Unfortunately, in English the
grapheme-phoneme correspondence is complex, and critics of
this approach have argued that this lack of perfect correspondence causes confusion for the beginning reader. More recently,
an approach to teaching reading that emphasizes meaning, called
whole-language instruction, has been widely implemented in
school districts, and the debate on how to best teach reading
has focused on whole-language versus phonics approaches.
In this monograph, we first present some background material on different writing systems and the alphabetic principle.
Then we discuss in more detail the starting point of learning to
read (and the learning process) and the end point (taking into
account insights from research in cognitive psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and connectionist models), while drawing
implications for learning to read. We continue with a discussion
of the methods that are used to teach children to read and what
happens in classrooms where children are taught to read. We
conclude by discussing research related to reading instruction.
WRITING SYSTEMS AND THE
ALPHABETIC PRINCIPLE
Writing systems have developed around mixes of various
principles that map a graphic form onto some unit of language.
All modern writing systems connect to the spoken language,
and do not directly encode nonlinguistic meanings. Written
language, of course, does not directly use the sound waves produced by a human speaker: A book obviously is not a CD
player. Instead, writing systems preserve abstract language
units that are used in spoken language.
As illustrated in Figure 1, writing systems differ as to which
language units are represented by graphic units. The elementary writing units can correspond to elementary speech sounds,
such as phonemes (the /b/ sound in bat) and syllables, and to
morphemes. Morphemes are the minimal units associated with
meaning (such as the cook in cooks and cooking) and grammatical form (the s in cooks and the ing in cooking). These mapping options give rise to the three major kinds of writing
systemsalphabetic, syllabary, and morpho-syllabic systems
that are found among the worlds languages, often in intermixed form (DeFrancis, 1989; Gelb, 1952). Each system may
have variations in orthographythe details of the mapping between graphic units and language units. And each system allows each of its basic units to map onto one or more
phonological units (phonemes or syllables) or morphological
units (morphemes).
English, Italian, Russian, and Korean are examples of alphabetic writing systems, in which graphic units (letters) are
associated with phonemes. The letter b in the written word bat
corresponds to the phoneme /b/ in the spoken word bat. Arabic, Hebrew, and Persian are modified alphabetic systems, in
which vowels can be omitted. In syllabaries, such as Japanese
32
Fig. 1. The general relationships among writing systems, orthographies, and languages. A given language contains multiple units in both
its basic phonological structure and its morphological structure. The
phonological units include phonemes and syllables, but also intermediate units such as onsets (syllable beginnings) and rimes (vowels plus
syllable endings). The morphological units are the units of meaning
and grammatical form of a language, including the stems of words and
word inflections. In a given writing system, one or more kinds of these
phonological and morphological units are the units of mapping; the
orthography is the system that controls the details of the mapping, including the extent to which the principles of mapping are intermixed.
Adapted from Perfetti (1997).
Kana, the graphic units correspond to syllables. Systems whose

units correspond to specific words or morphemes are usually
called logographic. The logographic type of writing system is
usually said to be represented by Chinese (along with the Japanese Kanji adaptation of the Chinese system). However, although its origins might be logographic, Chinese writing has
evolved into a morpho-syllabic system (DeFrancis, 1989) in
which the characters map onto syllable units that are also usually morphemes. The world is without an example of a writing
system that encodes meaning in any pure form. In fact, the history of writing exhibits movement away from representation of
meaning and toward more direct representation of sound (DeFrancis, 1989; Gelb, 1952; Hung & Tzeng, 1981).
The beginning reader must learn how a given writing system
relates to spoken units in his or her language. Thus, critical details of learning to read depend on the writing system. Chinese,
for example, can be read by associating each symbol with a
meaning. Learning these form-meaning associations takes considerable effort. A vocabulary of 5,000 to 7,000 characters is
typical of literate Chinese adults; during the first 6 years of
school, children master about 3,500 characters by learning 500
to 600 per year. For the past half-century, Chinese children
have been taught to read pin yin in the first grade prior to learning the character system. Pin yin is an alphabet, using letters of
the Roman alphabet to spell Chinese words and adding marks
to the spellings to indicate tones, the pitch variations that acVOL. 2, NO. 2, NOVEMBER 2001
K. Rayner, B.R. Foorman, C.A. Perfetti, D. Pesetsky, and M.S. Seidenberg

company Chinese vowels. Thus, Chinese children can be said
to learn alphabetic reading as a first step toward mastery of
their own morpheme-based system (Perfetti & Zhang, 1995).
Even with this head start, Chinese children spend more time at
both school and home learning to read Chinese characters than
American children spend in mastering an equivalent number of
words. Part of this difference in time spent practicing reading
undoubtedly reflects cultural factors (Stevenson & Lee, 1990).
However, an additional factor is the difference in economy between an alphabetic system and a character system. An alphabetic system gains economy by mapping written units onto a
small set of elementsthe phonemes of a languagerather
than the much larger set of morphemes a language has. This association of letters with phonemes is referred to as the alphabetic principle, and it allows alphabets to be productive; that is,
a small set of symbols (letters) can be used to write an indefinitely large number of words. Productivity simplifies the learning problem, for example, allowing the child to use the mapping
between four letters and their phonemes /t/, /p/, /s/, and /o/ to
read top, pot, stop, spot, pots, and tops.
One of the main points of this monograph is that, despite the
economy of the alphabetic principle, learning to read an alphabetic writing system like English is not easy. There are two main
sources of difficulty: the abstract nature of phonemes (especially
consonants) and the fact that most alphabets do not code each
vowel with a unique symbol. Regarding the first issue, young
children often have an imperfect idea of what phonemes are be-
cause they are abstractions rather than natural physical segments

of speech. This is less of a problem for vowels than for consonants. For example, the vowel sound in bat is about the same as
the one in laugh, and because vowels tend to have a relatively
long duration, in both words the sound can be clearly heard and
isolated. Thus, a teacher can point at the a in bat and say //, and
the child can hear the vowel sound clearly because it has sufficient duration no matter which sound precedes it. The pronunciation of a consonant, in contrast, can be highly dependent on the
vowels that precede and follow it. For example, the /d/ in dime is
different acoustically from the /d/ in dome or in lid. The letter d,
then, corresponds to a phonemic representation that subsumes the
/d/ sounds in these words but is not identical to any one of them.
In such cases, it may be difficult for a child who is learning to
read to discover and make mental representations of phonemes
without some assistance. It also follows that applying the alphabetic principle will be difficult: A child who cannot identify an
abstract phoneme (such as /d/) will have difficulty associating it
with a specific grapheme (such as d).
The second obstacle to learning to read an alphabetic writing
system is that many alphabets do not code each vowel with a
unique symbol. For example, American English has more than a
dozen vowel sounds but only five standard vowel letters (see Fig.
2). That means that a, e, i, o, and u have to do double and triple
duty, even with some help from y and w (both of which can
change vowel sounds, as in saw and say; y can also substitute for
i). For example, cat, car, and cake each use the letter a for a dif-
Fig. 2. A chart of the common spellings for vowels, positioned by place of articulation. The vowel sounds are represented by phonic symbols
and are arranged according to mouth position, from front to back and high to low. Vowel spellings are more variant than consonant spellings and
provide a challenge for beginning readers of English. From Speech to Print: Language Essentials for Teachers (p. 94), by L.C. Moats, 2000,
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes. Copyright 2000 by Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Reprinted with permission.
33

ferent vowel phoneme. Thus, the writing system exhibits economy (one letter represents these vowels rather than three) at the
expense of complexity (the mapping between letter and sound is
one-to-many). The trade-off is a good one because the resulting
ambiguity is greatly reduced by other regularities in the writing
system: For example, the pronunciation of a in cake is determined by the presence of the final e, and the pronunciation of a
in car is determined by the presence of the r and the absence of
the e, patterns that occur in many words. Thus, English is not as
irregular as is often implied. However, it is more complex than
many other alphabetic writing systems that adhere more closely
to the principle that each letter should be associated with a single
sound (Gelb, 1952; Hung & Tzeng, 1981).
The English writing system also exhibits a trade-off between phonological explicitness and morphological transparency. A fully explicit system would associate the letter a with a
single vowel phoneme, such as the // in fat, and use a different symbol for the vowel in fate. The cost, however, is that this
would obscure facts about morphological relationships between words. For example, the use of a to represent two different phonemes in nature and natural may be confusing as a
guide to pronunciation, but it serves to remind the reader that
the two words are morphologically related. This trade-off occurs repeatedly in English (N. Chomsky & Halle, 1968).
In summary, there are two main problems associated with
understanding the alphabetic principle. First, phonemes are
perceptual abstractions, and second, alphabets sacrifice phonological explicitness for symbol economy and morphological
transparency, thereby complicating the orthography. Because
of these problems, teaching methods that make the alphabetic
principle explicit result in greater success among children trying to master the reading skill than methods that do not make it
explicit. We discuss evidence for this assertion later.
THE DEVELOPMENT OF READING SKILL

How does a child come to acquire reading skill? What are
the foundational competencies that reading builds upon? What
is the course of development of these competencies? This section examines these questions. Before proceeding, we consider
some definitional issues. Considerable confusion has been created by the fact that people mean different things when they refer to reading. Confounding the problem is a genuine and
useful distinction between literacy and reading.
Literacy and Reading: Definitions
Each definition of reading can be defended on practical, logical, or programmatic grounds, and each has its own set of entailments that affect the framing of scientific and educational
issues. According to broad definitions, reading is understood as
a number of distinct literacy activities that have specific functions (e.g., reading bus schedules, newspaper ads, tax forms, or
road signs; D.A. Wagner, 1986). Narrow definitions focus on
34
the conversion of written forms into spoken language forms.

The most common definition has been a midlevel one: Reading
is getting meaning from print.
To see the value of the narrower definition, it is useful to
make a distinction between literacy and reading. Literacy includes a variety of educational outcomesdispositions toward
learning, interests in reading and writing, and knowledge of
subject-matter domainsthat go beyond reading. These dimensions of literacy entail the achievement of a broad range of
skills embedded in cultural and technological contexts. An extended functional definition is useful in helping to make clear
the wide range of literacy tasks a society might present to its
members. For example, literacy may be defined as including
computer literacy, historical literacy, and scientific literacy,
among others. Such a functional definition takes literacy as referring to a level of achievement, an extension of basic skill to
reasoning and discourse in a domain (Perfetti & Marron, 1998).
However, the starting point for literacy is reading skill. Although many children are engaged in written language at an
early age, schooling brings about specific expectations that all
children will develop the ability to read and learn from texts.
Our focus is on this necessary foundation. In this monograph,
we use the term reading to refer to the process of gaining
meaning from print. In focusing on readings distinguishing
features, we define learning to read as the acquisition of knowledge that results in the child being able to identify and understand printed words that he or she knows on the basis of spoken
language. Because words already known to a reader are sometimes said to be represented in a mental lexicon or dictionary,
this learning process can also be described as a modification of
the mental lexicon such that it becomes print addressable. Put
in other terms, learning to read is learning how to use the conventional forms of printed language to obtain meaning from
words. This definition separates learning to read from other aspects of cognitive development. The distinguishing features of
reading center on the conventionalized, graphic input to the
reader and his or her conversion of that input into languageencoded messages. This view implies that the child learning how
to read needs to learn how his or her writing system works.
How reading competence is achieved cannot be completely
separated from how reading is taught. However, evidence for
details of the course of reading acquisition in different instructional settings is sparse. That means that research that informs
reading acquisition has to be considered at least partly independently of instruction. We examine research on reading acquisition after first considering what kinds of cognitive and language
competencies are typically in place as a child enters school.
A Developmental Perspective on Reading
Learning to read builds on cognitive, linguistic, and social
skills that have developed from the earliest age. The most important among these is the childs competence in language,
which provides the basic foundation for reading.

Language development prior to school
Well before the start of school, children have acquired extensive knowledge of many aspects of language, including phonology, grammar, word meaning, and pragmatics (the social
and communicative use of language). Although elements of each
of these subsystems continue to be acquired over long periods
(e.g., word meanings are acquired over the life span), children
normally acquire the basics of each subsystem by age 4.
The phonological system is especially important for learning to read because, as we have observed, writing is a means of
representing speech. What are the childs phonological abilities? An important part of the answer to this question is that
whereas the basics of speech perception are acquired rapidly,
mental representations of abstract phonological structure undergo further refinement well into the period when children begin to be exposed to writing. Newborns can discriminate all of
the sounds (phonemes) that occur in spoken languages. Exposure to the sounds of ones native language, however, appears
to reduce this ability; by 12 months, infants readily discriminate only the sounds of their native language (Werker & Lalonde,
1988). Note, however, that completely reliable discrimination
between words that differ by only a single speech segment may
not develop until the beginning of year 5 (Gerken, 1994). The
reason for this slowdown after the rapid phonological development in the 1st year is unclear. One general possibility is that
children develop holistic strategies in word perception, relying
on prosodic and acoustic shapes more than segments (Gerken,
1994). If so, further development is postponed, being renewed
when the child begins to sharpen phonological representations
by taking account of segments (phonemes). One possible reason for this shift to segments is that the childs lexicon becomes
larger, forcing finer discriminations (Jusczyk, 1985, 1992). Another possibility is that increased speech production by the
child increases the demands for the child to represent speech in
terms of ordered segments (Studdert-Kennedy, 1986).
As in the case of phonology, knowledge of grammar develops rapidly. The basic syntactic structures of the language are
learned by age 2 (Bloom, Barss, Nicol, & Conway, 1994;
Brown, 1973; Pinker, 1984). For example, children under 2 understand that Big Bird is tickling Cookie Monster means
something different from Cookie Monster is tickling Big
Bird (Hirsh-Pasek, Golinkoff, Fletcher, DeGaspe Beaubien, &
Cauley, 1985, as cited in Bloom, 1994). This understanding is
permitted by knowledge about how semantic notions (agent,
recipient of action) map onto syntactic structures (first noun
phrase, second noun phrase) in English. Grammatical knowledge gets refined during the preschool years, and the child
comes to school equipped with fairly mature productive knowledge of his or her language.
Reading also depends on a developing knowledge of word
meanings. Unlike grammar, which includes the productive machinery of language, word meanings are concepts that must be
learned individually. Concepts and their lexical realizations are
continuously added to what the child already knows and reVOL. 2, NO. 2, NOVEMBER 2001
fined throughout development. The process starts early, with

children typically producing their first words prior to their first
birthday (Nelson, 1973). The comprehension of word meanings appears even earlier (Huttenlocher & Smiley, 1987). A
dramatic increase in word knowledge (the naming explosion)
occurs during the 2nd year, typically coinciding with the
childs first use of multiple-word phrases (Bates, Bretherton, &
Snyder, 1988). Although word meanings may not be part of the
grammatical system itself, grammar and vocabulary appear to
develop in tandem. Five- and 6-year-old children have vocabularies of 2,500 to 5,000 words (Beck & McKeown, 1991). Of
course, vocabulary continues to grow after children enter school,
and it is estimated that elementary-school children learn about
7 words per day (Nagy & Herman, 1987). However, individual
differences in vocabulary related to reading ability and to demographics are readily seen (Beck & McKeown, 1991). For
example, Graves and Slater (1987) reported that first graders
from the upper socioeconomic status (SES) had about double
the vocabulary size of first graders from the lower SES. (See
also White, Graves, & Slater, 1990.)
Finally, children acquire some understanding of the social
uses of language (pragmatics) throughout the preschool period
(Ninio & Snow, 1996). They learn about basic conversational
functions (e.g., turn taking) and conventional speech acts (e.g.,
requesting) that allow participation in a broad range of communicative situations (Snow, Pan, Imbens-Bailey, & Herman, 1996).
Beyond the basics of the phonological, grammatical, semantic, and pragmatic language subsystems (by which the child
comes to produce and understand language) are other developments important for literacy and for the mature use of language
forms. These developments are usually summarized by the
phrase metalinguistic awarenessawareness of the aspects of
language just discussed, as opposed to the ability to use them.
Children make judgments, for example, about the correctness
of sentence forms, using their knowledge of grammar (Pratt,
Tunmer, & Bowey, 1984). Each of the linguistic subsystems
the morphological and phonological as well as the grammaticalis a potential area for metalinguistic awareness. Phonological awareness, which we discuss in more detail later, is
especially important for learning to read alphabetic writing
systems.
One type of metalinguistic awareness that is outside the productive components of language is also relevant for reading
the concept of a word. Although young children quickly recognize that things have names, the knowledge of single words as
basic units of meaning develops gradually over the preschool
period (Papandropoulou & Sinclair, 1974; Tunmer, Herriman,
& Nesdale, 1988). Many preschool children appear to confuse
the name with the object it refers to, referring to snake as a
long word and caterpillar as a short one, for example. The relevance of this confusion for reading was demonstrated by Gleitman and Rozin (1977), who found that preschool children
could not specify which of two printed words corresponded
to each of two spoken words that differed in length (see also
35

Lundberg & Torneus, 1978). Thus, awareness of words as spoken forms is helpful but not sufficient for recognizing how such
words are realized in print.
In summary, the child comes to school with a well-developed language system. Many elements undergo further development, but the functioning language system the child already
has is sufficient to support reading.
Reading readiness and emergent literacy

Learning to read can be viewed from the context of other aspects of development, too: There are additional skills on which
reading builds, and reading is a component of other developmental progressions. These alternative perspectives are reflected in two different approaches to preparing children to
read. The skills tradition has been to teach and assess reading
readiness skills in kindergarten (around age 5), as preparation
for reading instruction in the first grade (around age 6). The
prereading experience includes skills developed through exposure to visual forms and oral language, as well as experiences
more directly related to reading (learning the alphabet).
A more recent alternative perspective takes a developmental
view of literacy development. It emphasizes a developmental
continuity between the cognitive tasks typical of the preschool
period and learning to read (Sulzby, 1985). This view, known
as emergent literacy (Clay, 1991), links the young childs activities around books to later opportunities for actual reading.
Young children are characterized as developing concepts about
the components of literacy, and their performance on various
literacy-like tasks is used to place them on a developmental
continuum. In this framework, the assumption is that reading
and writing are developmental phenomena. Thus, literacy is
characterized in developmental stages, with childrens ideas
about literacy being qualitatively different from those of literate adults (Ferreiro, 1986). The central idea of emergent literacy is that literacy emerges in various forms in development
before being transformed into conventional reading and writing. This view has had considerable impact on teacher training
and classroom practice. Classrooms organized on emergent-literacy principles emphasize a variety of communication opportunitiesoral reading by the teacher, idea sharing by children,
writing, and drawingbut with little emphasis on letter-sound
relationships.
The developmental perspective is important for bringing
into focus the accumulating knowledge that supports learning
to read and providing a reminder that children come to school
with varying amounts of knowledge about literacy activities.
Some children will have acquired some knowledge of how
written forms are mapped onto spoken language, but many will
not have been so fortunate. At some point, children who learn
to read must learn how their language is represented in the
writing system. This knowledge is not a natural end point of a
developmental progression; rather, it is usually the product of
instruction and practice.
36
A learning perspective on learning to read

Learning to read is one specific example of learning. According to this perspective, the salient questions are (a) what is
it that children learn when they learn to read? and (b) how does
such learning come about? The answer to the first question is
roughly that a child comes to learn that the writing system encodes his or her spoken language in a systematic way. The answer to the second question is that the child must be taught or
else discover how this systematic encoding works.
Learning to Read an Alphabetic Writing System
For an alphabetic writing system, a child must learn that letters and letter strings correspond to speech segments. The alphabetic principle, the idea that written symbols are associated
with speech sounds, is the key design principle of alphabetic
writing and must be grasped by the child. Whether this knowledge is acquired implicitly (through the extraction of printspeech correspondences in text) or explicitly (through direct
instruction) varies among children.
Alphabetic writing systems differ in terms of orthographic
depth (Frost, Katz, & Bentin, 1987), or the consistency of the
mapping between letters and sounds. In a shallow orthography,
the mapping is highly consistent. Finnish, Italian, and Dutch
are all shallower than English because letters are more reliably
associated with particular phonemes. English is deeper because
the spelling-sound correspondences are more variable, as illustrated earlier. In comparing different orthographies complexity and ease of learning, one needs to consider not just depth,
but also many other features of orthographies and the languages they represent, as well as trade-offs between orthographies and languages (Seidenberg, 1992). For example, English
has many irregularities at the level of individual graphemes and
phonemes, but most of them occur in short, high-frequency
words, such as have, was, and the. Moreover, English is less inconsistent at the level of the larger, subsyllabic unit called the
rime (a vowel plus syllable ending; Treiman, Mullennix, Bijeljac-Babic, & Richmond-Welty, 1995), and this unit is highly
salient in early reading (Goswami, 1993).
Good readers have a good grasp of spelling-sound correspondences, as evidenced by their ability to sound out novel
words (Blachman, 1989). The extent to which learning the alphabetic principle depends on explicit instruction is not clear.
Some evidence suggests that it may be difficult for children to
infer the principles of correspondence without instruction
(Byrne, 1991), whereas other research suggests that this is exactly what successful readers do in the absence of direct instruction (Thompson, Cottrell, & Fletcher-Flinn, 1996). Both
conclusions seem reasonable. Without direct instruction, learning to read successfully is not guaranteed, but some children do
learn to read without such instruction. To the extent that learning occurs, whether by direct instruction or implicit learning,
the problems posed by an inconsistent orthography are overcome just as other inconsistent-mapping problems in human

learning are overcomeby practice. With sufficient effective
practice, children acquire a context-sensitive mapping of relations between graphemes and phonemes (and larger units). So
-ow comes to be pronounced one way in the context n_ _ and
another way in the context l_ _. As we discuss next, initial success in learning to read depends on the extent to which the
child has developed knowledge of individual speech sounds.
Phonological Awareness
The central problem in learning to read English is that although discovering and applying the alphabetic principle is a
key to success, this is not an easy achievement for beginning
readers. Concerning this discovery, Ehri (1979) wrote, If the
light were not so gradual in dawning, the relationship between
speech and print might count as one of the most remarkable
discoveries of childhood (p. 63). As already noted, this is a
difficult learning problem because (a) phonemes are abstract
categories, (b) they have not been fully developed through the
use of speech by the time reading instruction begins, and (c)
there are inconsistencies in the mapping between spelling and
these units in deep alphabetic orthographies such as the one for
English.
The term phonological awareness (or phonemic awareness)
refers to childrens knowledge of the internal sound structure
of spoken words. There is a large literature examining how
childrens level of phonological awareness relates to their success learning to read. Phonological awareness is assessed by
tasks such as deciding if two words rhyme or if they start or
end with the same sound. Not surprisingly, children who perform well on such tasks do markedly better in early reading
than those who do not. And, conversely, children who score
poorly on phonological-awareness tests prior to entering school
are much more at risk for not learning to read effectively than
children who score well (Bradley & Bryant, 1978, 1983).
The strong relationship between phonological awareness
and learning to read has been shown by numerous studies in
several languages (Ball & Blachman, 1988; Blachman, 1989;
Fox & Routh, 1976; Lundberg, Olofsson, & Wall, 1980; Stanovich, Cunningham, & Cramer, 1984; Tunmer et al., 1988; R.K.
Wagner & Torgesen, 1987). Other studies have suggested that
instruction can bring gains in phonological awareness and, in
turn, in reading (Ball & Blachman, 1988; Bradley & Bryant,
1983; Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1991; Lundberg, Frost, &
Petersen, 1988; Mann, 1991; Perfetti, Beck, Bell, & Hughes,
1987; Treiman & Baron, 1983; Vellutino & Scanlon, 1991).
Moreover, reading programs that emphasize phonologicalawareness training have proved to be successful in classrooms
(Blachman, 1989; Wise, Ring, & Olson, 1999). Effective reading instruction can help teach children what they need to know
about both the alphabetic principle and phonological awareness. Furthermore, phonological training can remediate problems for children who have not learned to read (Blachman,
1989; R.K. Olson, Wise, Ring, & Johnson, 1997).
The relationship between knowledge of phonological structure and ability to read is reciprocal. At the start of reading instruction, childrens knowledge of phonological structure is partial:
Although they have begun to discover aspects of the internal
structure of spoken words, they typically have not converged
on explicit representations of phonemic segments. These partially structured phonological representations are sufficient to
support the use of spoken language. Exposure to orthography
and explicit instruction in the mappings between spelling and
sound lead to further refinement of childrens phonological
representations, in the direction of more explicit representations of segments and other units such as onsets and rimes.
Learning to spell also contributes to this process (Shankweiler
& Lundquist, 1992). These refinements in turn facilitate further
development of reading skill.
These observations suggest that the childs development of
phonemic representations is more closely tied to reading than
to speech. No child ready to read has trouble hearing that bad
and pad are different forms with different meanings. Making
such distinctions does not require the use of phonemes; they
can be based on acoustic phonetic information (such as the difference in voice onset time, the lag between the release of the
consonant and the onset of the vowel, that differentiates /b/
from /p/) to which even infants are sensitive, or on the basis of
whole syllabic representations. In fact relatively few preschool
children demonstrate an awareness of phonemes despite showing awareness of syllables (I.Y. Liberman, Shankweiler, Fischer,
& Carter, 1974). The alphabetic writing system both builds
upon and facilitates the development of phonemic representations. It is in keeping with the alphabetic principle that a single
letter d, for example, is used to represent the category of
sounds called the phoneme /d/. Thus, the alphabetic principle
was a unique discovery in the evolution of writing systems
(Gelb, 1952), and it is a discovery not made by all children on
their own.
Three types of evidence indicate that reading experience
plays a role in developing phonemic knowledge: (a) studies of
illiterate adults (Morais, Cary, Alegria, & Bertelson, 1979), (b)
longitudinal studies of first graders (Perfetti et al., 1987), and
(c) studies of Chinese readers (Mann, 1986; Read, Zhang, Nie,
& Ding, 1986). For example, Morais et al. compared how illiterate and recently literate Portuguese speakers from the same
community performed on phonological-awareness tasks. The
illiterate participants could not add or delete an initial consonant from a spoken utterance, but the adults who had recently
become literate by attending adult education classes performed
the task successfully. The implication is that experience with
an alphabetic orthography may be necessary for an individual
to develop full phonological representations.
Experience with an alphabetic orthography also reduces the
impact of dialect variations on phonological awareness. Despite regional dialects, speakers of American English share
knowledge of phonology, morphology, and semantics. For example, some Americans no longer explicitly represent final
37

consonant clusters in speech (e.g., test is pronounced tes).
However, there is an underlying tacit awareness of these phonemes in all speakers, whether they are literate or not. This
awareness is evidenced by their overt phonological representation in inflected forms of a word. That is, /st/ is pronounced in
testing by a speaker who would drop these phonemes in
test. However, this tacit knowledge is not sufficient for illiterate speakers to identify the final sound in test as /t/ (Morais et
al., 1979). Furthermore, for literate speakers, there is the awareness that despite reduction of consonant clusters in speech, the
phonemes /st/ are explicitly represented orthographically in
spelling (test). Thus, experience with an alphabetic orthography draws conscious attention to the underlying phonological
representation of words and prompts literate speakers to write
final consonant clusters even though they do not pronounce
them in speech.
Finally, we add a note about the relationship between intelligence and phonological awareness. It is tempting for laypersons and parents to assume that intelligence plays a critical role
in learning to read. In the extreme, of course, this must be true.
However, three lines of evidence indicate that in general it is
not. First, studies of children who learn to read early (prior to
entering school) indicate that there is not a strong relationship
between IQ and early reading (Briggs & Elkind, 1973; Durkin,
1966); although the mean IQ of early readers is above average,
the range of their IQ scores indicates that many children who
are early readers do not have unusually high IQs. Second, a
number of studies have found that IQ is only weakly and nonspecifically related to reading achievement in the first and second grades (Stanovich, Cunningham, & Feeman, 1984). Finally,
children who have difficulty learning to read often have aboveaverage IQs (Rawson, 1995). Hence, it is not surprising that
phonological awareness is the strongest predictor of early reading skill (M.J. Adams, 1990).
Learning to Read at the Beginning
Prior to the onset of direct instruction in grapheme-phoneme correspondences, when childrens knowledge of phonological structure is limited, their earliest attempts at reading are
revealing. Gough (1993; Gough & Juel, 1991) demonstrated
that 5-year-old children, as a first pass at reading, associate features of print with spoken word names, apparently without using the orthography of the words. In one experiment, children
learned to recognize a word by use of a thumbprint placed on a
card containing the printed word. When the thumbprint was absent, so was recognition. In another experiment, children were
found to associate selective parts of the printed word to the
spoken word. After being shown a short list of words, they
were presented with either the first letters or the end letters of
the words. Children who could identify the word based on its
first letters failed to identify it when presented with only the final letters; children who could identify the word based on the
final letters failed to identify it when presented with its initial
38
letters. This suggests that attending to all the letters of a word is

not something that all children do at the beginning (see also
Rayner, 1988). Goughs study does not imply that 5-year-olds
cannot use letter forms and their associated speech forms. It
merely shows that in the absence of reading instruction and
knowledge of letter-sound correspondences, children can approach a reading task by memorizing the visual images of
words, without learning how the sound-letter system works.
Moving to productive reading requires more than memorizing
printed words.
Theories of Learning to Read
Progress in learning to read has often been viewed as a series of stages (Chall, 1983; Ehri, 1991; Frith, 1985; Gough &
Hillinger, 1980; Marsh, Friedman, Welch, & Desberg, 1981).
The earliest stage can be characterized as attempts to learn associations between visual features of graphic forms (not complete orthographic word forms) and spoken words. A subsequent
stage of graphic-phonological decoding, in which children
learn the letter-sound associations, brings on a truly productive
capability enabling them to read words they have not seen
before. The use of letter names as a bridge to phonology is a
beginning step (Ehri, 1991). Alternative theoretical accounts
emphasize the incremental acquisition of individual word representations rather than discrete stages (Perfetti, 1992). In each
of these theories, phonology plays an important role in helping
the child establish word-specific orthographic representations,
a proposal that has come to be known as the bootstrapping hypothesis, the idea that attempting to decode an unfamiliar word
is a form of self-teaching that allows the child to acquire an orthographic representation for the word (Share, 1995).
Stage theories of reading development
A proposal by Gough (Gough & Hillinger, 1980; Gough &
Juel, 1991; Gough & Walsh, 1991) illustrates stage theories.
The first stage is a visual association stage, which is followed
by a second stage of decoding-based learning. In the first stage,
the child, absent any knowledge of decoding, uses any conceivable source of information to discriminate one word from another. In doing this, the child builds up a set of words that can
be recognized on the basis of partial visual cues (e.g., an initial
letter). Gough called this first stage selective association because the basic learning mechanism establishes idiosyncratic
associations between some part of a printed word and the name
of the word. Under the right circumstances, including an increase in phonological awareness and an intention to encode all
of the letters of the word, the child moves into the cipher stage
of true reading (Frith, 1985, called this the alphabetic stage).
As the child reaches the limits of learning associations, there is
pressure to adopt a new procedure, one based on the alphabetic
principle. Early in reading, for example, a child can attend to
the m in mouse to distinguish mouse from cat and house. But as
moon and moose are encountered, the association cue that was

sufficient earlier becomes insufficient. This problem then fuels
progress in the childs attending to more orthographic information.
An alternative view comes from Ehri (1980, 1991; Ehri &
Wilce, 1985). In her theory, there is no purely visual stage (as
in Goughs account). Rather, children use letter names as cues
to word identification from their very first opportunity, as when
the letter j provides its name (jay) as a cue for reading the
word jail. Learning the alphabet, not necessarily the alphabetic
principle, is the key that moves a child into the first stage of
reading, called phonetic cue reading. In this stage, the child
reads by using some of the associations between the printed
letter forms and the phonetic cues of some of the letters (their
phonological associations). As in the selective association
stage identified by Gough, the child is reading primarily by using incomplete, selective associations. But in Ehris account,
the associations are systematic and based on letter-sound correspondences. The process of learning to read involves establishing complete word representations that have both phonological
and orthographic components.
A nonstage incremental theory

The theories we have discussed so far assume that children
learn to read by progressing through a series of stages defined
by different types of decoding strategies. Other theories emphasize the incremental nature of development (Munakata,
McClelland, Johnson, & Siegler, 1997). The basic idea is that
many types of knowledge are acquired gradually on the basis
of many experiences. What appear to be qualitative shifts in
strategy result from changes in the amount and complexity of
the information that has been acquired. Consider, for example,
the observation that children progress from an early logographic stage (in which printed words are directly associated
with meanings and pronunciations) to an alphabetic stage (in
which they make use of knowledge concerning components of
words such as letters and phonemes). Research (see Using
Connectionist Models) has shown that this shift does not require a change in strategy or in the hypothesis about the nature
of print. Rather, it can be accounted for by a process of gradual
learning based on many examples. In other words, progress to
an alphabetic stage can be viewed as a change in behavior: increased sensitivity to the internal structure of words and the
correspondences between subword components and pronunciations (as the alphabetic principle is discovered). Thus, whereas
stage theories provide qualitative characterizations of changes
in childrens performance, the connectionist theory attempts to
explain how these changes arise from more basic mechanisms.
In Perfettis (1992) nonstage framework, learning to read
involves the acquisition of increasing numbers of word representations that can be accessed by their spellings (quantity acquisition) and changes in the specificity and redundancy (quality
dimensions) of individual words representations. As a child
learns to read, his or her representations of words increasingly
have specific letters in their correct positions (i.e., increased

specificity). Also, these representations become phonologically
redundant. The addition of specific grapheme-phoneme correspondences for a word is redundant with the word-level pronunciation of the word. Such redundancy assists word reading
by allowing both letter-level and word-level processes to produce a words pronunciation. Together, increasing specificity
and redundancy allow high-quality word representations that
can be reliably activated by orthographic input. As individual
words become fully specified and redundant, they move from
what is called the functional lexicon, which consists of words
that can be read only with effort, to the autonomous lexicon,
which includes words that can be read with minimal effort.
This theory has been applied to explain individual differences
in reading skill (Perfetti & Hart, in press).
All the theories we have discussed are compatible in many
respects and indeed share the fundamental assumption that
achieving reading skill requires use of the alphabetic principle.
This principle, effectively applied to print-sound connections
and supported by phonological sensitivity, is the critical factor
in early success in learning to read (Bradley & Bryant, 1983;
Ehri & Sweet, 1991; Juel, Griffith, & Gough, 1986; Share,
1995; Tunmer et al., 1988).
Mechanisms of Progress in Learning to Read
Beyond these rudimentary beginnings, progress in learning
to read is fueled by several factors that center on increasingly
adaptive use of the alphabetic principle and the establishment
of orthographic patterns that are associated with pronunciations. Successful learners apply their primitive understanding
of the alphabetic principle to their encounters with words,
which are turned into opportunities to apply and extend their
alphabetic knowledge. Studies by Stuart (1990; Stuart & Coltheart, 1988) illustrate this point: The extent to which children
made phonological errors (i.e., misidentified a word as a similar-sounding word) in word reading early in the first grade predicted their end-of-year reading achievement. Nonphonological
errors, including errors that shared letters but put phonemes in
the wrong position (e.g., like for milk), were associated with
low end-of-year achievement. The point at which phonological
errors became more common than nonphonological errors coincided with when the child attained functional phonological
skill (i.e., knew at least half the alphabet and was successful in
at least some tests of phonological sensitivity). Also, the level
of a childs phonological sensitivity (awareness) corresponded
in some detail to the level of the childs achievement in word
reading.
Truly productive reading, the ability to read novel words,
comes only from an increase in knowledge of how orthography
relates to phonology. This requires attention to letter strings
and the context-sensitive association of phoneme sequences to
these letter strings. This is where sensitivity to phonological
structure should play its most important role. Children who
39

have attained this productive level of reading can read pronounceable nonwords, and their errors in word reading show a high
degree of phonological plausibility. These considerations, along
with demonstrations that success in learning is associated with
a phonological approach to reading (Stuart & Coltheart, 1988),
suggest that the main learning mechanism available to the child
is phonological recoding, recoding of spellings into pronunciations. A model of how this mechanism works comes from
Share (1995), who emphasized the role of self-teaching in learning to read words. An important focus in this model is childrens attempts to phonologically recode words. One opportunity
to do this arises during reading aloud either to a parent or to a
teacher. The feedback from these attempts gradually builds up
the orthographic representation of specific words. The role of
phonology, in effect, is to influence the development of wordspecific orthography. The letter-by-letter processing in sequential decoding of words may be the main factor in producing
high-quality word representations that incorporate the letter
constituents of those words (M.J. Adams, 1990; Ehri, 1980; Perfetti, 1992; Venezky & Massaro, 1979). Several studies have
found that a few exposures to a word may be sufficient for the
child to acquire word-specific orthographic information (Brooks,
1977; Manis, 1985; Reitsma, 1983), increasing the specificity
and redundancy of the childs printed-word lexicon. Although
other mechanisms might promote the acquisition of printaccessible word representations, phonological recoding is the
most effective mechanism (Share & Stanovich, 1995).
The importance of a phonological-recoding mechanism,
therefore, goes beyond its role in learning decoding rules. In
addition, the application, even the imperfect application, of this
mechanism helps the child learn specific word forms. Models
such as Shares (1995) self-teaching model emphasize the childs
acquisition of individual word representations, rather than stages
of development. Such models (Harm & Seidenberg, 1999; Perfetti, 1992; Share, 1995) ask which words can a child read?
rather than what stage is the child in? The rapid buildup of
the childs lexicon through reading promotes many words to a
functionally high-frequency status (i.e., they become familiar).
Texts that contain a high proportion of familiar words will be
read well, and the occasional low-frequency word provides an
opportunity for phonological self-teaching. Because the child
will face many low-frequency words over time, the phonological-recoding mechanism is a very powerful, indeed essential,
mechanism throughout reading development, not merely for
beginners. Research has shown, for example, that third-grade
children who are skilled in reading can quickly and accurately
read a novel word that they have previously only heard; less
skilled readers tend to reach the same level of accuracy and fluency reading these words only when they have previously actually seen the words (Hogaboam & Perfetti, 1978).
An important fact about the acquisition of reading skill is
that it improves with practice. What is it that is improved?
Practice improves many components, but central among them
is knowledge of individual words. Experience in reading al40
lows the increasingly accurate representation of a words spelling (its specificity), as well as a strengthening of the connection
between the phonological form and the spelling, and this specificity increases the speed of word identification. Practice in
reading brings about an increasing facility with words because
it increases the quality of lexical representations. It turns lowfrequency words into high-frequency words. The result is what
is commonly known as fluency in reading. Fluency entails developing rapid and perhaps automatic word-identification processes (Laberge & Samuels, 1974). The main mechanism for
gains in automaticity is, in some form or another, practice at
consistent input-output mappings (Schneider & Shiffrin, 1977).
In reading, automaticity entails practice at retrieving word
forms and meanings (the output) from printed words (the input). Automaticity is a characteristic of specific words, not
readers. Words move from the functional lexicon to the autonomous lexicon as a result of practice reading text.
Experience not only builds automaticity, it also establishes
an important lexical-orthographic source of knowledge for
reading (Stanovich & West, 1989). This lexical-orthographic
knowledge centers on increasing familiarity with the letters
that form the printed word. It is reflected in performance on
tasks that assess spelling knowledge, as opposed to those that
assess mainly phonological knowledge, and is indexed by the
amount of reading a person has done. Phonological and lexicalorthographic abilities are correlated, but each makes a unique
contribution to reading achievement. The result is two complementary but overlapping kinds of knowledge that support the
reading of words.
One benefit of reading practice is that it supports comprehension ability, vocabulary growth, and spelling skill. Stanovich (Stanovich & Cunningham, 1992; Stanovich & West, 1989)
measured college students reading experience (or print exposure) and correlated it with measures of cognitive and reading
abilities. On the Author Recognition Test, a print-exposure
measure, readers are given a list of 80 names, 40 names of real
authors and 40 other names, and are asked to indicate which
are the names of authors. Correctly identifying the real authors
on this test is presumably an indicator of reading experience,
and greater reading experience, measured in this way, correlated with better comprehension, spelling, and vocabulary
skills. Furthermore, print exposure accounts for variance in
word recognition and spelling that is not accounted for by phonological processing in adults (A.E. Cunningham, Stanovich,
& Wilson, 1990; Stanovich & West, 1989) and children (A.E.
Cunningham & Stanovich, 1991).
Notice that the Author Recognition Test allowed differentiation of print exposure within a relatively homogeneous population of college-age readers. Print exposure appears to be the
literacy equivalent of practice in skills like chess; just as practice in chess separates grand masters from excellent tournament players, practice at reading separates skilled readers from
less skilled readers in the college population. Thus, this research is important in establishing that the amount of reading

makes an independent contribution to reading skill. This contribution appears to be mediated not by phonological processes, which readers must acquire anyway, but rather by the
more general facilitation that arises from accessing words repeatedly. It is the dilemma of the less able reader that he or she
will not get as much practice as the more able reader. The gap
between more and less able readers thus increases with time
(Stanovich, 1986). Furthermore, A.E. Cunningham and Stanovich (1997) found that 1st-grade reading ability was a strong
predictor of 11th-grade reading ability and suggested that the
rapid acquisition of reading ability helps develop the lifetime
habit of reading. Thus, although it might be tempting to believe
that initial differences in reading ability wash out over time, the
data suggest just the opposite.
Spelling
Childrens initial expression of the alphabetic principle appears more often in spelling than in reading (Frith, 1985). Indeed, childrens attempts at spelling prior to formal reading
instruction typically reveal an understanding of basic lettersound associations (C. Chomsky, 1970; Read, 1971). In producing spellings, preliterate children often use the sounds associated with the names of the letters, spelling car as KR, for
example. In effect, this spelling uses the name of the letter R (/ar/)
to capture both vowel and consonant. As Treiman and Cassar
(1997) pointed out, the tendency to use letter names in spelling
is affected by phonological properties of the letter names. R is
more likely to be used for /ar/ than T is for /ti/ or L for /l/ because it is harder to segment the /r/ from its preceding vowel
than to segment the /t/ and /l/ from the vowels following and
preceding them. These observations have two important implications: Treiman and Cassars findings about R, L, and T reflect
the difficulty of reliably segmenting syllables into phonemes
and reinforce the conclusion that full awareness of phonemes is
difficult to achieve prior to literacy. But the broader implication
is that one underestimates the childs potential grasp of the alphabetic principleor at least the idea that speech sounds are
associated with lettersif one considers only decoding. Spelling is the primary early indicator of this potential and can form
the basis for later expression of the alphabetic principle in decoding.
It is also clear, however, that early spellings are guided by
more than the childs attempts to map sounds onto letters. Treiman (1993; Treiman & Cassar, 1997) has shown that at an
early age children become sensitive to both the orthographic
structures and the morphological structures that are present in
spellings. Even in first grade, childrens classroom spellings reflect a number of orthographic conventions, including, for example, the fact that ck never occurs as a spelling of /k/ at the
beginning of a word, but does occur following a vowel. First
graders show their sensitivity to morphology when they refuse
to spell dirty as dirdy, even though the /d/ sound is what is
heard. The conventional spelling honors the fact that dirty conVOL. 2, NO. 2, NOVEMBER 2001
tains the lexical morpheme dirt plus a suffix. Children are more
likely to substitute a d for a t in a single-morpheme word such
as duty (Treiman, Cassar, & Zukowski, 1994). At this age, childrens use of morphology is very incomplete, and many of their
errors reflect a preference for spelling a sound over spelling a
morpheme. But clearly, at least as soon as literacy is under
way, children begin to show an awareness that conventional
spellings honor both phonological and morphological structure, as well as conventional orthographic constraints.
Eventually, in many languages, the learner confronts an important fact about spelling: Typically, the mapping from pronunciation to spelling is less consistent than the mapping from
spelling to pronunciation. Reading is more reliable than spelling. An important idea about the relation between spelling and
reading comes from recent research on word identification. The
more ways a sequence of phonemes can be spelled, the longer
it takes to read a word containing that sequence. For example,
shelf is more efficiently read than sneer because its rime unit
/lf/ is always spelled elf, whereas the rime unit /ir/ is spelled
variously as eer, ear, ier, or ere. Notice that this is not a question of consistency in the direction of orthography to phonology:
eer is always pronounced /ir/. Stone, Vanhoy, and Van Orden
(1997) reported the first demonstration of this backward consistency effect (i.e., effect of phonology on orthography). Although the reliability of this phenomenon is a focus of research
(Peereman, Content, & Bonin, 1998), it is interesting to note
the obvious implication it would have for reading and spelling.
If reading words really includes a feedback mechanism from
phonology to orthography, then the reader would not merely
convert a written input into a phonological representation but
would also, in effect, verify (rapidly and unconsciously, to be
sure) that the phonological representation could be spelled in
the way presented. More generally, the hypothesized feedback
mechanism illustrates one way that spelling and reading may
be intimately related.
The relationship between reading and spelling is represented in Figure 3, which presents a system in which lexical
representations include information needed for both spelling
and reading (both letter and phoneme strings). Some identities
(letters or phonemes) can be missing or variable or incorrectly
specified, especially for children. Reading can be successful
with an underspecified representation, but spelling cannot.
It has been observed that children can sometimes spell
words that they cannot read (Bryant & Bradley, 1980). However, this phenomenon is no more frequent than that of failing
to read a word after having read it successfully once before, or
failing to spell a word after successfully spelling it once before
(Gough, Juel, & Griffith, 1992). Thus, variability in performance, which is presumably due to an unreliably specified
mental representation, characterizes both reading and spelling
and is consistent with the assumption that reading and spelling
have a common representation system.
It is the case, of course, that spelling is more difficult than
reading, and indeed many skilled readers identify themselves
41
Fig. 3. The spelling-reading relationship. Both processes use a lexical

representation that contains orthographic (O) and phonological (Ph)
constituents (i.e., graphemes and phonemes). These constituents can
be incompletely specified in the representation. A conventional spelling process requires complete specification of constituents, whereas
the reading process, which needs only to discriminate a presented
word from other words, does not. The two ovals represent the directions of the reading and spelling processes. Reading transforms orthographic representations into phonological ones (with a possible
feedback to orthography), and spelling transforms phonological representations into orthographic ones (with a possible feedback to phonology), as explained in the text. For simplicity, the figure ignores the
important role played by morphology in both reading and spelling.
Adapted from Perfetti (1997).
as terrible spellers. Spelling is typically more difficult than

reading not because they use different representations, but because spelling requires additional processes that benefit from
specific practice at spelling. Because spelling requires production, whereas reading requires recognition, success in reading
does not lead automatically to success in spelling. Interestingly, this is true even among children who are learning to read
a shallow orthography through phonics-based teaching, as is
the case in the Netherlands (Bosman & Van Orden, 1997). Childrens spelling ability benefits from instruction that specifically
targets the production of conventional spellings.
Comprehension
It can be reasonably argued that learning to read enables a
person to comprehend written language to the same level that
he or she comprehends spoken language. Thus, reading comprehension is not so much an issue of reading as it is an issue of
general language comprehension. However, the reality is that
assessments of reading skill are concerned with reading comprehension and that this concern reflects the expectation that
children should understand what they read. Thus, although we
focus more in this monograph on word reading than on comprehension, it is important to emphasize the importance of
comprehension as a part of a more complete picture of reading
skill.
42
There are several important points to emphasize in considering comprehension. First, as we just pointed out, comprehension is a matter of language understanding, not a unique feature
of reading. Thus, the acquisition of reading comprehension
skill includes two highly general components: the application
of nonlinguistic (conceptual) knowledge and the application of
general language comprehension skills to written texts. An important question for instruction is the extent to which either of
these applications needs to be targeted in the classroom. The
research literature is clear in showing profound effects of specific conceptual knowledge on the comprehension of texts
(Alba & Hasher, 1983). Knowledge is a matter of general education, inside and outside the classroom, and has little specific
claim on reading, however. Its contribution, as important as it is
to every comprehension event, is not an intrinsic component of
reading, which includes mechanisms that can compensate to
some extent for limited knowledge (Perfetti, 1985).
Two conclusions about the role of comprehension in learning to read seem warranted. First, comprehension is critical as
part of the acquisition of reading skill. Second, much of what is
important about comprehension is highly general to language,
and not unique to reading. Evidence for this comes from the
high correlations (in the range of r .9) observed between
written and spoken language comprehension among adults
(Bell & Perfetti, 1994; Gernsbacher, 1990; Gernsbacher, Varner, & Faust, 1990). These correlations are lower for children
and increase with age (Curtis, 1980; Sticht & James, 1984), as
would be expected if general language-comprehension skills
show their importance as basic literacy skills are mastered.
If written and spoken language comprehension go together,
what about children who can read words but whose reading
comprehension is not as good as their spoken language comprehension? The frequency of such cases may be exaggerated
by the anecdotal impressions of teachers who have not had the
luxury of assessing carefully both the comprehension (spoken
and written) and word-identification skills of such children
(Perfetti, 1985). There is surprisingly little convincing documentation of pure reading comprehension deficits accompanied by high levels of both word-identification and listening
comprehension skill. Some research (Stothard & Hulme, 1996;
Yuill & Oakhill, 1991) suggests that some children have better
decoding than reading comprehension skills. However, these
children appear not to have specific reading problems, but
rather to have general comprehension problems associated with
both spoken and written language (Stothard & Hulme, 1996).
It is important to note that spoken language skills, acquired
in conversation and play, may not transfer to reading comprehension for typical written texts. Indeed, there are differences
between spoken and written language that should lead to processing differences (D.R. Olson, 1977). This would mean that
skills developed in oral settings would not transfer to spoken
versions of written texts either. The high correlations between
spoken and written language comprehension have been obtained in studies that use a single set of materials that are preVOL. 2, NO. 2, NOVEMBER 2001

sented in two different modalities. These studies have not
correlated spoken comprehension of typical spoken language
with written comprehension of typical written language. Accordingly, the high correlations partly reflect the effects of specific text material that is more typical of written than spoken
language. The conclusions that reading comprehension depends on spoken comprehension may need to be qualified a bit.
It may be more correct to say that the potential for comprehending a written text is set by the ability to comprehend that
same text when it is spoken. The typical differences between
the uses of spoken and written language suggest that special efforts directed toward the distinctive aspects of written text
comprehension may be warranted as part of reading instruction, especially as written texts become more complex later in
elementary school.
Implications for Teaching Reading
The instructional goals for alphabetic systems seem clear:
Children need to learn that the letters of their alphabet map
onto speech segments of their language. However, controversies over how to teach reading abound. Rather than focusing on
letter-sound correspondences, the dominant instructional approaches for the past 20 years were meaning focused, built
around story reading, exposure to print, and enhanced language
environments. Nevertheless, for more than 30 years, research
has supported the effectiveness of methods that are based on
direct instruction in phonics or decoding. In a major review of
research on reading acquisition titled Learning to Read: The
Great Debate, Chall (1967) concluded that the majority of the
research tended to favor phonics instruction, and her comprehensive study has been confirmed by more recent studies (M.J.
Adams, 1990; Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, &
Mehta, 1998). However, the practice of reading instruction has
remained out of touch with research, emphasizing a variety of
language activities but minimizing the teaching of graphemephoneme relationships. Much of the debate has been fueled
by philosophical stances and professional advocacies that
have little to do with the research basis for effective teaching
(Stanovich, 2000). However, there are recent indications that
a stronger consensus is emerging in favor of research-guided
practice.
Summary
Most children come to reading instruction with normally
developed language abilities, which can provide the foundation
for learning to read. Those children with less developed language abilities still benefit from phonological-awareness instruction. The central achievement of early reading is learning
to read words, which requires knowledge of the phonological
structures of language and how the written units connect with
the spoken units. Phonological sensitivity at the subword level
is important in this achievement but is not provided to all chilVOL. 2, NO. 2, NOVEMBER 2001
dren by the spoken language in their environment. Phonological training helps the acquisition of reading. Very early, children
who will turn out to be successful in learning to read use phonological connections to letters, establishing decoding as a mechanism for productive reading, the ability to read previously
unencountered words. An important mechanism for this is phonological recoding, which helps the child acquire high-quality
word representations. Gains in fluency (automaticity) come
with increased experience, as does increased lexical knowledge, which supports word identification.
DEVELOPMENTAL DYSLEXIA
Individual differences in reading achievement are often due
to differences in the ability to read words, and, indeed, children
and adults display a wide range of ability to read words. When
reading skill is sufficiently low relative to certain standards, the
individual has a disability called dyslexia. In discussing dyslexia, we need to distinguish between acquired dyslexia and
developmental dyslexia. Individuals who have acquired dyslexia were previously able to read quite fluently, but because of
some type of brain injury (resulting from head injury, stroke, or
degenerative neuropathology, such as Alzheimers disease),
they can no longer read efficiently. There are several patterns of
acquired dyslexia (see Coslett, 2000), and we make reference
to some of them here to support certain arguments.
Our focus, however, is on developmental dyslexia, which
varies along a continuum from mild to severe. The term has traditionally been reserved to apply specifically to children who
have normal intelligence and do not exhibit frank sensory or
neurological impairments (Critchley, 1970). More generally,
the dyslexia label is typically restricted to individuals whose
reading levels are discrepant from the potential implied by their
IQs. However, children who have reading disability appear to
present the same reading problems whether or not they meet
the discrepancy criterion (Stanovich & Siegel, 1994). In either
case, these children have not mastered the task of learning to
read efficiently, and intervention by the end of the second grade
is often critical for their successful reading development (Rawson, 1995). Their reading difficulties must be understood in
terms of underlying cognitive processes that can go wrong. A
signature problem for all struggling readers is their poor skill at
reading words and pseudowords (nonwords, like mard, that are
pronounceable and could be words because they conform to
English spelling rules). These problems, as we discuss later in
this section, are often traceable to problems in phonological
processing.
Contemporary research suggests that developmental dyslexia is caused largely by language-related deficits, whose neurological bases are beginning to be identified (Pugh et al.,
2000). Although these deficits sometimes affect other aspects
of behavior, they have a particularly large impact on reading.
We now describe some of the suspected causes of developmental dyslexia.
43

The Phonological-Deficit Hypothesis
Given the extensive evidence indicating the importance of
phonological information in reading acquisition, it is not surprising that the leading hypothesis about the cause of developmental dyslexia is that it is due to deficits in the representation
and use of this information (Snowling, 2000; Stanovich & Siegel, 1994). Phonological information plays important roles in
reading familiar words and sounding out new ones; phonologically based working memory capacities are used in integrating
and comprehending words in sentences (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1989; Jorm & Share, 1983; Pollatsek, Lesch, Morris, &
Rayner, 1992). There is extensive evidence that these functions
are impaired in many dyslexics (Harm & Seidenberg, 1999;
Snowling, 2000).
Although there is broad agreement that dyslexia is typically
associated with impaired use of phonology, the basis of the
deficit is less clear. One hypothesis is that the deficit is secondary to subtle impairments in the processing of auditory information (Tallal, 1980); another is that the deficit is limited to the
processing of speech (Mody, Studdert-Kennedy, & Brady, 1997).
The basic idea is that speech perception involves processing a
complex, rapidly changing auditory signal. Impairments in the
capacity to process this information (because of either a
speech-specific or a general auditory deficit) would be expected to interfere with the development of the phonological
representations that are critical to reading. The auditory-processing hypothesis gains support from studies that have identified this type of deficit in some dyslexics (Reed, 1989); the
speech-processing hypothesis gains support from studies in
which dyslexics demonstrated impaired processing of speech
but not other auditory information (Mody et al., 1997).
It is important to note, however, that many developmental
dyslexics perform normally on tests of both auditory and speech
processing. For example, there have been numerous studies of
the perception of consonants in nondyslexic and dyslexic individuals (de Weirdt, 1990; Nittrouer, 1999; Werker & Tees, 1987).
These studies involved assessing listeners capacity to perceive
the differences between stimuli such as /pt/ and /bt/. The
studies have found that dyslexic children whose performance
on measures of phonological knowledge is impaired exhibit
normal categorical perception of phonemes (Joanisse, Manis,
Keating, & Seidenberg, 2000). These data point to an information processing deficit that has a significant, debilitating effect
on learning to read but little impact on speech perception or
other uses of language. As we have noted, segmental phonological information is critical for reading in alphabetic orthographies; it develops in part through exposure to print, and may be
less crucial to the perception of spoken language. Thus, the effects of a mild information processing deficit might be manifested only in the reading context (Harm & Seidenberg, 1999).
In contrast, deficits in speech perception and auditory processing have been reliably observed in a subset of dyslexics
who exhibit impairments in the use of spoken language; these
children are often said to have developmental language impair44
ment, or developmental dysphasia (Joanisse et al., 2000; Tallal,

1980; Werker & Tees, 1987). Whether dyslexia that involves a
phonological deficit and developmental language impairment
derive from a common underlying impairment varying in severity is also the focus of ongoing research (D. Bishop, 1997).
Other Possible Causes
Reading is a complex task involving several cognitive capacities. Impairments in any of these capacities could in principle
interfere with reading. Moreover, there could be variability among
dyslexics with respect to etiology; although phonological deficits are very prominent in dyslexics, there could be subgroups
with other deficits (or multiple deficits). Two possibilities have
been the focus of considerable research.
Visual impairments
One hypothesis is that some manifestations of dyslexia are
secondary to impairments in the processing of visual information. Indeed, visual processing was the central feature of dyslexia described by Orton (1925), who hypothesized that failure
to achieve normal hemispheric dominance causes dyslexics to
confuse letters such as b and d. Explaining dyslexia as a visual
deficit has been the standard lay theory of dyslexia, despite a
relative lack of evidence (Vellutino, 1979).
Interest in a visual explanation has been revived by studies
more closely tied to current theories of vision. Several studies
have reported that some dyslexics exhibit impairments in visual processing that are functions of the dorsal visual pathway
in the brain, the where system (see Ungerleider & Mishkin,
1982). This system is dominated by input from magnocellular
cells in the lateral geniculate nucleus, and plays an important
role in the detection of transient visual information (e.g., rapid
changes in illumination, motion detection). Eden et al. (1996)
reported a brain-imaging study in which a small sample of dyslexics was found to be impaired in judging the relative velocities of visual stimuli; they also exhibited abnormal activation in
area V5/MT, part of the magnocellular system. However, the
overall evidence for a fundamental deficit in the visual system
remains in doubt. Other careful studies have failed to observe
the hypothesized impairment (Hayduk, Bruck, & Cavanagh,
1996). Nor is it known how the visual deficit relates to the phonological impairment identified in many other studies. The
dyslexics in the study by Eden et al. were also impaired on a
nonword reading task, an indication of an impairment in phonological processing. Stein and Talcott (1999) reviewed other
evidence for the magnocellular deficit hypothesis, which is the
focus of considerable controversy (see chapters in Willows,
Kruk, & Corcos, 1993). It is fair to conclude that although further research may confirm the existence of a type of dyslexia
that arises from magnocellular processing deficits, the current
evidence suggests that visual impairments by themselves are a
very small part of dyslexia (Fletcher, Foorman, Shaywitz, &
Shaywitz, 1999).

Developmental delay
Children with phonological dyslexia exhibit a characteristic
atypical developmental pattern: They read significantly below
grade level, their knowledge of phonological structure is poor,
and they have difficulty sounding out unfamiliar words. Some
research has identified a smaller group of dyslexics who do not
fit this pattern (Castles & Coltheart, 1993; Manis, Seidenberg,
Doi, McBride-Chang, & Petersen, 1996; Murphy & Pollatsek,
1994; Stanovich, Siegel, & Gottardo, 1997). They also read significantly below grade level, and their phonological knowledge
is also below grade level, but their levels of reading achievement and phonological knowledge are more closely matched
than among children in the larger group. Unlike phonological
dyslexics, their performance is very similar to that of younger
children learning to read normally. Thus, they exhibit a general
developmental delay in reading acquisition, rather than an
overtly aberrant developmental trajectory. This delay may arise
from several factors, including environmental ones (e.g., insufficient reading experience, ineffective teaching methods). However, in cases in which these environmental factors can be ruled
out, several endogenous factors may produce this pattern. Such
factors may include a general learning impairment, a limitation
on the brain resources that are recruited for reading, or an impairment that affects the representation of orthographic rather
than phonological structure (Harm & Seidenberg, 1999; Manis
et al., 1996; Snowling, 2000). The possible contributions of
these factors to what is likely to be a heterogeneous subgroup of
dyslexics are not as yet well understood, however.
Summary
A considerable body of evidence supports the phonologicaldeficit hypothesis, allowing research to focus on specific questions about the nature of this deficit and ways it can be remediated. At the same time, there is growing evidence that dyslexia
may have multiple causes, which may require different types of
intervention, and that the causes may have different effects in the
case of different writing systems. Although research has identified a narrow range of possible causes, basic questions about
their frequencies of occurrence and co-occurrence, how they affect reading, and whether they give rise to different patterns of
behavioral impairment remain to be determined. Answering
these questions is essential to developing effective procedures
for identifying dyslexic children and remediating their problems.
Given the research, it appears that three main elements are necessary for reading intervention with dyslexics: (a) phonologicalawareness training, (b) systematic phonics instruction that is
linked to spelling, and (c) oral reading practice with decodable
texts (i.e., texts that include only words using the accumulating
set of letter-sound correspondences that have been taught).
SKILLED READING
Although our focus is on learning to read, we now examine
the end point of learning to read, skilled reading. We begin by
discussing research from cognitive psychology and then move

to recent findings from cognitive neuroscience that are relevant
for understanding reading. One emergent trend in cognitive
psychology is the development of formal models implemented
as computer programs that simulate behavior. In the present
section, we discuss some such models that address various aspects of reading.
The View From Cognitive Psychology

Within cognitive psychology, there has been widespread interest in the processes associated with skilled reading. Cognitive psychologists have been extremely interested in how
words are recognized, how eye movements are controlled in
reading, how text is comprehended, and a variety of other issues. In 1879, Wilhelm Wundt established the first laboratory
of experimental psychology, in Germany, and this event resulted in considerable interest in language processing (Blumenthal, 1970). One of the topics that received particular
attention in the early days of experimental psychology was
reading. This early interest reached its peak with the publication of Hueys (1908) classic work The Psychology and Pedagogy of Reading. The kinds of questions asked by Huey and his
contemporaries, and covered in his book, parallel the kinds of
questions addressed in modern textbooks on the psychology of
reading (Crowder, 1982; Crowder & Wagner, 1992; Just &
Carpenter, 1987; Perfetti, 1985; Rayner & Pollatsek, 1989).
Huey was keenly interested in the mental activities involved in
reading. However, with the onset of the behaviorist revolution
in 1913, research on mental processes in reading ceased. A
number of psychologists who had previously been interested in
cognitive processes during reading turned to the burgeoning
field of test development, and worked to develop tests to measure reading ability.
The reemergence of cognitive psychology in the mid-1960s
resulted in widespread interest in reading once again. In the
early 1970s, reading was viewed as a psycholinguistic guessing
game (Goodman, 1970) or a hypothesis-testing activity (Levin
& Kaplan, 1970), and tenets such as reading is only incidentally visual were espoused. According to this view, readers engaged in a cycle of activity in which they generated a
hypothesis about what the next word would be, moved their
eyes to that word, quickly confirmed their hypothesis, and then
generated a hypothesis about what the next word would be.
Obviously, processing was viewed as being largely contextually driven. Also, this approach suggested that there was a bottleneck during skilled reading at the stage of getting visual
information into the processing system. A large amount of research on skilled reading has led to the replacement of this hypothesis-testing view by one in which the processing activities
involved in reading occur very rapidly, so that the information
needed for reading gets into the processing system very
quickly. Thus, there is no bottleneck at the visual input stage.
Furthermore, although context has an important effect on inter45

preting meaning, skilled readers identify words quickly with
little help from context. It is readers of lower skill who rely on
context to support word identification (Perfetti, Goldman, &
Hogaboam, 1979; Stanovich, 1980). Two lines of research have
been very influential in shaping current views about skilled
reading: research on eye movements during reading and on
word identification. We discuss these two topics, and then issues related to comprehension.
Eye movements in reading
Although people have the phenomenological impression
that when they read their eyes glide smoothly across the page,
this impression is an illusion. In fact, the eyes make rapid
movements separated by periods of time when they are relatively still (called fixations). These fixations typically last about
200 to 250 ms, and it is during these periods that people acquire information from the text. During the actual movements
of the eyes (called saccades, which typically cover about eight
to nine letter spaces and last about 2040 ms), vision is suppressed so that no new information is acquired. Reading is thus
like a slide show in which the text is on for about a quarter of a
second and then off for a brief period of time while the eyes
move. In addition to making forward-moving saccades, skilled
readers move their eyes backward in the text to reread material
about 10 to 15% of the time; these regressions are often driven
by breakdowns in the comprehension process.
The reason readers move their eyes so frequently has to do
with acuity limitations in the visual system. Because acuity is
best in the center of vision (the fovea), people move their eyes
so as to place the text they want to process on the fovea. Outside the fovea, acuity drops off markedly in parafoveal and peripheral vision, where the anatomical receptors are not able to
discriminate the fine details of the letters making up the words.
Some classic research (McConkie & Rayner, 1975; Rayner,
1975; Rayner & Bertera, 1979) using an eye-contingent display-change paradigm, in which readers eye movements were
monitored by a highly accurate eye-tracking system and changes
in the text were made contingent upon where the reader was
looking (see Fig. 4), demonstrated that the perceptual span (or
region from which useful information is acquired) is restricted
to an area extending from 3 or 4 letter spaces to the left of fixation to 14 or 15 letter spaces to the right of fixation for readers
of English. Information used to identify words is typically restricted to no more than 7 to 8 letter spaces to the right of fixation, with more gross information (such as the length of upcoming
words) acquired out to 15 letter spaces.
The consequence of these acuity and perceptual-span limitations is that skilled readers fixate on about two thirds of the
words in text; the words that are typically skipped are short
words and words that are highly predictable from the preceding
context. But even though words are not directly fixated, there is
evidence that they have been processed (as fixations preceding
and following skips have inflated durations). Two other facts
are highly relevant for the current discussion (see Rayner,
46
Fig. 4. Examples of eye-contingent display-change paradigms. The

top line shows a line of normal text. In the moving-window example, a
window of readable text (extending 9 letter spaces to the left and right
of fixation, indicated by the asterisk) is available on each fixation
(with letters outside the window replaced by xs). Two consecutive fixations are shown. In the boundary example, the word tune is initially
present in the text, but tune changes to song when the readers eye
movement crosses an invisible boundary location (the w in new).
Adapted from Rayner (1998).
1998, for further detail). First, the information needed for reading gets into the processing system very quickly. As long as the
text is available for 50 to 60 ms before a masking pattern appears to obliterate it, reading proceeds quite normally. Second,
although readers are not consciously aware of their eye movements, how long the eyes remain fixated on a word is very
much influenced by the ease or difficulty of understanding that
word. Thus, for example, low-frequency words are fixated
longer than high-frequency words. The conclusion that follows
from all of this evidence is that readers are not engaging in all
sorts of guessing activities, but rather are efficiently and
quickly (at an unconscious level) processing the text. Indeed,
all the letters in a word are being processed during word identification, as we discuss in the next section.
We conclude this section with three final observations. First,
beginning readers eye movements are quite different from
those of skilled readers (Rayner, 1986). Beginning readers fixate virtually every word (and make more than one fixation on
many words). Thus, their saccades are much shorter (around
three letter spaces) than skilled readers. Furthermore, their average fixation durations are much longer (between 300 and 400
ms) than skilled readers, and they regress much more frequently (so that up to 50% of their eye movements are regressions). Their perceptual span is also smaller than that of skilled
readers (see Fig. 5). Basically, their eye movements reflect the
difficulty they have encoding the words in text. Second, research on skilled readers shows quite clearly that phonological
Fig. 6. Sample display sequences in the word-superiority-effect paradigm. On the left is an example of the display sequence when the target stimulus is a word (in this case, word). First, a fixation point is
presented. It is followed by a very brief presentation of the target word
(the stimulus display), which is immediately followed by a mask
(####) and two response choices (d and k). The subject has to choose
which of the response choices was present in the stimulus. In the middle is an example of a display sequence with a single-letter target stimulus (in this case, d). On the right is an example of a display sequence
with a nonword target stimulus.
Fig. 5. Illustration of the perceptual span for skilled readers and beginning readers. The text between the two slashes on each line represents the size of the perceptual span for a given fixation. The asterisks
indicate fixation location. For each kind of reader, the top line illustrates a fixation and the total perceptual span. The next two lines illustrate more specifically, for two successive fixations, which letters are
identified (in boldface) and which letters are not identified (not in
boldface). Some information, such as word length and gross featural
information, can be obtained from unidentified letters inside the perceptual span.
codes are activated for words very early in eye fixations (Pollatsek et al., 1992; Rayner, Sereno, Lesch, & Pollatsek, 1995).
Finally, there are now computer simulation models (Reichle,
Pollatsek, Fisher, & Rayner, 1998) that do a very good job of
predicting where readers fixate and how long they fixate.
Word identification
An important issue with respect to how words are read deals
with whether they are processed as wholes (in parallel) or letter
by letter (serially). More than 100 years ago, Cattell (1886) addressed this issue by asking people to report what they saw
when words and letters were briefly exposed. In fact, they were
better able to report words than letters. These results were used
by educational reformers to advocate whole-word teaching
methods. However, when Reicher (1969) and Wheeler (1970)
replicated this finding with an improved experimental design,
the results did not support whole-word instruction. The characteristics of their paradigm are shown in Figure 6. Basically, a
word, single letter, or nonword letter string was presented very
briefly (about 2540 ms) and followed immediately by a masking pattern that would interfere with any extended processing
of the stimulus after its offset. In addition, two letter choices
were presented: One was the correct letter (in the word and
nonword conditions, the letter that had been previously shown

in the position indicated), and the other was a letter that had not
been presented. Notice, however, that in the word condition,
this incorrect alternative, if substituted in the word in the position indicated, always resulted in a different word (e.g., in Fig.
6, the incorrect alternative, k, also made a word if substituted
for d). Reicher and Wheeler found that responses were more
often correct in the word condition than in the other conditions.
Thus, a letter is better identified when it is embedded in a word
than when it is presented in isolation or in a nonword. This result, called the word-superiority effect, suggests that Cattells
phenomenon is real: Letters in words are identified more accurately than letters in isolation.
The phenomenon forces two conclusions. First, the serial,
letter-by-letter view of word recognition cannot be correct: If
this view were correct, readers would have been more accurate
with single letters than words given the limited processing
time. Second, all the letters in the word must have been processed, as readers were able to identify correct letters at all positions with equal accuracy. This latter point has implications
for reading instruction because it indicates that all the letters in
a word need to be processed in order for the reader to build a
specific representation of the word that can be accessed quickly
and accurately. Although memorizing the shapes of words at
the beginning of reading may get children started reading, it is
not enough for reading development to continue (Ehri & Wilce,
1983).
In general, the word-superiority effect has been taken as evidence that all of the letters in short words are processed in parallel. The effect ultimately led to the development of powerful
computer simulation models designed to account for the results. These initial models, called the interactive activation
model (McClelland & Rumelhart, 1981; Rumelhart & McClelland, 1982) and the verification model (Paap, Newsome, McDonald, & Schvaneveldt, 1982), were the forerunners of even
more elegant and powerful connectionist models (such as Plaut,
47

McClelland, Seidenberg, & Patterson, 1996; Seidenberg & McClelland, 1989) that we discuss in Using Connectionist Models
to Understand Reading and Dyslexia.
A second general issue regarding word identification is the
extent to which phonological (or speech-based) codes are involved in identifying words. In principle, the meanings of
words could be identified in two ways: either directly from
print (traditionally termed direct access) or by computing a letter strings phonological code and using that information to access meaning (phonologically mediated access). There has
been a long-standing debate about which of these is more efficient. Smith (1973) forcefully argued that direct access is necessarily more efficient because it does not require the extra
phonological-recoding step and because English has numerous
irregularly pronounced words (have, pint, etc.). His observations had considerable impact on educational practice, lending
support to whole-word (and later, whole-language) approaches.
The problem with direct access, however, is that, unlike the
mapping between spelling and sound, the mapping between
spelling and meaning is largely arbitrary (Van Orden, Pennington, & Stone, 1990) and thus difficult to learn. Moreover, consider what happens when a beginning reader encounters an
unfamiliar word. The direct-access mechanism cannot operate
because the letter string has not been encountered before and
thus the association between form and meaning has not been
established. However, if the child can phonologically recode
the letter string (sound it out), it can be matched to knowledge of the word derived from spoken language. Thus, phonological recoding provides a basis for generalization, as well as
an important self-teaching mechanism (Jorm & Share, 1983).
The debate about the extent to which word reading is phonologically mediated clearly parallels (and indeed contributed to)
the debate concerning the extent to which reading instruction
should emphasize phonics.
Most contemporary theories of word reading assume that
both direct and phonologically mediated mechanisms are available to skilled readers (see Fig. 7), but they make different assumptions about the division of labor between them (Frost,
1998; Seidenberg, 1995). Some theories assume the primacy of
the direct pathway (Coltheart, 1978), others the primacy of
phonological recoding (Berent & Perfetti, 1995; Van Orden et
al., 1990). In Paap and Noels (1991) influential model, processing is attempted in the two pathways in parallel, with a race
between them. Which pathway wins for any given word depends on word factors (such as familiarity and spelling-sound
consistency), reading skill, and the nature of the writing system
(how directly and consistently it represents phonological information). In Harm and Seidenbergs (2001) recent model, both
pathways jointly determine the activation of meaning (see Using Connectionist Models).
There is now a large body of evidence that phonological information plays an important role in word reading, even among
highly skilled readers (Frost, 1998) and for nonalphabetic writing systems such as Chinese (Perfetti & Zhang, 1995). We have
48
Fig. 7. A simple dual-route model of word recognition. The arrow

from the printed word to the visual code represents the direct route to
the lexicon, whereas the arrow from the printed word to the phonological code represents the route to the lexicon via grapheme-phoneme
correspondences. The arrow directly from the phonological code to
pronunciation reflects the fact that nonwords can be pronounced.
already noted that eye movement experiments have demonstrated that phonological codes are activated very early in an
eye fixation. Other compelling evidence comes from studies by
Van Orden (1987; Van Orden, Johnston, & Hale, 1988), who
devised a clever way to diagnose the activation of phonology.
Subjects were presented with a question (e.g., Is it a flower?)
and then had to read a target word (e.g., rose) and decide if it is
a member of the designated category. On critical trials, the target was a homophone of a category exemplar (e.g., rows). On a
significant number of such trials, subjects incorrectly identified
the word as a member of the category. Moreover, such false
positive responses also occurred for nonword targets that
sounded like words (e.g., article of clothing: sute). These responses would not have occurred unless subjects had phonologically recoded the letter strings. Similar results have been
obtained in studies of several other writing systems (Frost,
1998). Thus, phonological recoding plays a much more prominent role in skilled reading than Smith (1973) asserted. This is
among the most important findings in contemporary research
on reading, and it strongly suggests the achievement of reading
skill depends in part on learning to use phonological information efficiently.
Reading comprehension
Whether reading uses just those processes that serve spoken
language or requires something more turns out to be a difficult
question. Reading comprehension clearly depends on spoken
language comprehension. Correlations between spoken language and reading comprehension are modest early in learning

to read (Curtis, 1980) but, as noted earlier, increase with the
development of reading skill (Sticht & James, 1984), reaching
.90 for adult samples (Gernsbacher, 1990). Thus, reading comprehension has little variance unique to reading for adults, but
shows both variance shared with listening comprehension and
variance unique to reading among children. This pattern of correlations indicates that reading comprehension skill approaches
listening comprehension skill as printed word identification is
mastered.
Reading comprehension involves a number of different interacting processes that have been the target of much research.
Some of this research has emphasized the guidance given to
comprehension by higher-level sources of knowledge. For example, readers are sensitive to the causal relations among characters actions as they read a story (Trabasso & van den Broek,
1985). They may also use a wide range of knowledge outside
the text to guide comprehension in other ways, including by
making inferences (Graesser, Singer, & Trabasso, 1994). It is
clear that readers do more than merely comprehend sentences
when they read. However, some general models of comprehension describe in detail how the comprehension of text can be
built up over the reading of successive words and sentences,
from the bottom up (Kintsch, 1988, 1998; McKoon & Ratcliff,
1992; Myers & OBrien, 1998). Thus, comprehension includes
guidance from knowledge outside the text, but even this influence can be understood in part by how the meanings of words
actually read in the sentence trigger such knowledge. Even
reading comprehension begins with the word.
Accordingly, accessing word meaning in context, parsing
sentences, and drawing inferences are all part of the overall
process of comprehension. In addition, the skilled reader monitors his or her comprehension to verify that the text is making
sense. When readers have problems in comprehension, the
source might be any of these processes. Indeed, the interdependence among the components of comprehension means that
multiple problems are likely to be observed in such cases and
that finding a single cause of comprehension failure, as a general case, is unlikely. For example, because the higher levels of
processing rely on output from lower levels, an observed problem in text comprehension can also result from lower-level processes, including word identification, basic language processes,
and processing limitations.
The interplay among these lower-level factors can be complex. For example, differences in basic language skill lead to
individual differences in comprehension, and less skilled readers show a wide range of problems with syntax. The question is
whether such problems arise from a syntactic-processing deficit or from some other source that affects performance on syntactic tasks (such as working memory limitations, lack of
practice, or lexical processing limitations). Research with children (Crain & Shankweiler, 1988) and adults (Carpenter, Miyake,
& Just, 1994) suggests that syntactic parsing problems can
arise from processing limitations rather than from problems
with syntax itself. Comprehension difficulties may be localized
at points of high processing demandswhether from syntax or

something else. If this analysis is correct, then the problem is
not intrinsic deficits in syntax, but the processing capacity to
handle complexity. More generally, the hypothesis that working memory factors produce individual differences in comprehension has received wide support over years of research
(Baddeley, 1979; Just & Carpenter, 1992; Perfetti & Lesgold,
1977; Shankweiler & Crain, 1986). It is clear that among children as well as adults, working memory factors constrain comprehension of both spoken and written language.
An interesting view on individual differences is the structure-building framework (Gernsbacher, 1990), which frames
comprehension skill around the assumption that readers, in
constructing a coherent framework for a text, activate and enhance relevant concepts while suppressing irrelevant concepts.
According to this approach, people with poor reading skills
have deficient suppression mechanisms. Consider, for example,
the sentence He dug with the spade. The final word in this
sentence has two meanings, but only one fits the context of the
sentence. However, when adults are asked to decide whether a
word is related to the meaning of the sentence, their decisions
are initially slow for ace (related to the inappropriate meaning
of spade). In other words, both appropriate and inappropriate
meanings may be activated at first. If the amount of time between reading the sentence and seeing ace is increased, however, skilled readers show no delay in rejecting it (i.e., they
suppress the irrelevant meaning), but less skilled readers continue to react slowly to ace, as if they have not completely suppressed the irrelevant meaning of spade. A failure to use
context is not what is involved here. Research with children
found that less skilled readers use context in word identification at least as much as and perhaps more than do skilled readers (Perfetti, 1985; Stanovich, 1980). However, either a failure
to suppress irrelevant information, an insufficient level of specific and reliable knowledge about word forms and meanings
(Perfetti & Hart, in press), or both can lead to comprehension
failures.
The complexity of text comprehension implies several possibilities for processing failure beyond those already discussed.
There are also higher-level skill differences in text comprehension. For example, problems in making inferences have been
the target of much research. Oakhill and Garnham (1988) summarized evidence suggesting that less skilled readers fail to
make a range of inferences. When skill differences in inferences are observed, their uniquenessthat is, whether they occur in the absence of differences in lexical, working memory,
or general language processesis seldom clearly demonstrated. However, there has been some success in identifying a
small percentage of children whose problems can be considered comprehension-specific, although highly general across
reading and spoken language (Stothard & Hulme, 1996).
Another example of a high-level contributor to comprehension problems is comprehension monitoring (a readers implicit
attempt to ensure a consistent, meaningful understanding). Skilled
49

readers can use the detection of a comprehension breakdown
(an apparent inconsistency) as a signal for rereading and repair.
Less skilled readers fail to engage this monitoring process (Baker,
1984; Garner, 1980). However, such differences may not be independent of the ability to construct a simple understanding of
the text (Otero & Kintsch, 1992). Because comprehension monitoring, like inference making, both contributes to and results
from the readers text representation, it is difficult to attribute
comprehension problems uniquely to failures to monitor comprehension, as opposed to more basic comprehension failures.
For comprehension to succeed, readers must import knowledge from outside the text. Thus, a powerful source of individual differences in comprehension skill is access to knowledge
needed for a given text (Anderson, Reynolds, Schallert, & Goetz,
1977). However, readers of high skill compensate for lack of
knowledge to some extent (B.C. Adams, Bell, & Perfetti,
1995). It is the reader who lacks both knowledge and reading
skill who is assured failure. Moreover, the deleterious effect of
low reading skill (and its motivational consequences) on learning through reading creates readers who lack knowledge of all
sorts.
Perhaps nothing is so important to successful reading comprehension as practice, by which we mean repeated engagements with reading texts of various types. Reading itself
increases familiarity not only with words but also with text
structures and written syntax, which are not identical to the
typical structures and syntax of spoken language. Thus, continuing development of reading skill as a result of initial success at readingand the parallel increasing failure as a result
of initial failureis undoubtedly a major contributor to individual differences in reading comprehension.
Implications for learning to read
As we noted at the outset of this section, the view of skilled
reading has changed dramatically over the past 30 years.
Whereas skilled reading was once considered a guessing game
because of bottlenecks in the processing system, it has become
quite clear that skilled readers are able to quickly process the
visual information in the text, and that it is more efficient to
process what is there than to make guesses about what may be
there. In addition, a considerable amount of research suggests
that phonological codes are intimately involved in skilled reading. Whereas it was once thought that phonological processing
in reading was simply a carryover from the way children are
taught to read (orally before silently), it now appears that phonological codes are activated very early in processing words
and that this information is used in both accessing the meanings of words and remembering information in the text. What
all of this suggests is that instruction that helps children efficiently and quickly understand words, and that provides an analytic strategy for learning new words, should provide the most
effective way to become a skilled reader.
The research on comprehension has less precise implications for learning to read. It does suggest that a combination of
50
(a) simple comprehension procedures closely linked to word

processing and syntax and (b) more complex knowledgedriven processes is characteristic of skilled comprehension.
Various ideas about comprehension instruction in the context
of reading have been proposed and have been the target of active research. However, there is little in the basic research on
comprehension nor in instructional research to give strong
guidance on comprehension instruction.
The View From Cognitive Neuroscience
Although modern brain-imaging work is still in its infancy,
methods such as functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI)
and positron emission tomography (PET) have provided new
and converging information about the functional neuroanatomy
of reading. These imaging methods provide spatial information
on a centimeter or even millimeter scale, but with limited temporal information. Questions about time course are better addressed by event-related potential (ERP) methods. Although the
standard brain-imaging question may appear to be What lights
up in the brain when words are read? the potential of brainimaging research goes well beyond this. For example, do studies yield evidence for the phonological processes of word identification that have proved so important for understanding
reading? What do imaging studies have to say about the reading problems identified in dyslexia research?
Brain imaging
Neuroimaging studies of reading generally require comparisons between images made during the performance of a reading task and those made during baseline conditions. A simple
comparison that has provided basic data on reading is one between reading aloud a single word and looking at a small fixation cross. This comparison has identified regions that show
greater activation during the reading task. In many cases, the
regions are also activated during other kinds of tasks. For example, primary motor cortex is activated during reading because it is involved with movements of the mouth required by
oral reading. Identifying areas that play a more distinctive role
in reading itself requires other comparisons.
Research following this general approach has identified
brain regions that play some role in word reading (see Fiez, in
press, for a review). Imaging studies have sought to link specific orthographic, phonological, and semantic components of
word identification (Crosson et al., 1999; Pugh, Shaywitz,
Shaywitz, & Shankweiler, 1997) to specific locations in inferior frontal cortex, the left temporoparietal cortex, and the left
basal temporal cortex (near the occipital-temporal boundary).
For example, Fiez, Balota, Raichle, and Petersen (1999) found
that a left frontal region responded differentially to words with
consistent spelling-to-pronunciation mappings and words with
inconsistent mappings. Thus, these three areas, illustrated in
Figure 8, appear to provide a major part of the functional neuVOL. 2, NO. 2, NOVEMBER 2001
Fig. 8. A simple schematic of some of the left-hemisphere brain areas

that are involved in word reading (based on Fiez, in press). (Some righthemisphere areas are also involved in reading.) Research suggests
posterior areas (occipitotemporal) may include structures specifically
involved in orthographic processing of printed words (i.e., a visual
word-form area). Both left inferior frontal and temporoparietal regions
play a role in word reading that involves phonological processing.
roanatomy underlying the knowledge components (orthographic,

phonological, and semantic) that are needed in word reading.
We now consider briefly what has been learned about each
source.
The visual areas in the occipital cortex that are used for object recognition are an obvious candidate for supporting orthography in the brain. In examining this hypothesis, researchers
have focused comparisons on activations associated with reading words versus looking at pictures and on activations associated with reading different kinds of letter strings (e.g., words,
pseudowords, and strings of letters). The search for an area that
is dedicated to printed words (a word-form area) has led to
some strong candidates, especially in an area near the occipitotemporal border, the left middle fusiform gyrus. This area responds differently to nonwords, pseudowords, and words (Fiez
& Petersen, 1998). In patients with lesions in occipitotemporal
areas, severe disturbances in ability to read words as wholes,
with a reliance on letter-by-letter reading (pure alexia), has
been reported (Patterson & Lambon Ralph, 1999).
As we have emphasized, the conversion of an orthographic
form into a phonological form is a central part of reading, and
how the brain carries out this task is of great interest. Furthermore, the inability to read pseudowordsa process that relies
on this conversion process without the aid of word meaning
has become a marker for phonological dyslexia (Coltheart, Curtis, Atkins, & Haller, 1993). Studies of patients have identified
two brain regions where lesions lead to deficits in phonological
decodingthe left inferior frontal lobe and the temporoparietal
cortex. Lesions in one or both of these areas are associated with
difficulty in reading pseudowords (Fiez & Petersen, 1998; PatterVOL. 2, NO. 2, NOVEMBER 2001
son & Lambon Ralph, 1999). Patients with these lesions tend to
read words relatively well (compared with pseudowords), as if
they are able to use a stored lexicon that remains intact with these
lesions. Recent evidence from direct electrical stimulation of the
temporoparietal region produces an interesting convergence
with the data from patients. The ability of normal readers to
name pseudowords, a signature task for sublexical processing,
is disrupted by stimulation in this region, but their ability to
name real words is not (Simos et al., 2000). Also, frontal regions have shown greater activation for pseudowords than for
real words in some studies (Fiez & Petersen, 1998). Thus, both
left frontal and temporoparietal regions are active in reading in
tasks that require or encourage phonological processing (Demonet, Fiez, Paulesu, Petersen, & Zatorre, 1996). However,
whether sublexical and lexical processes can be neatly separated remains uncertain.
In discussing dyslexia, we noted the pervasive extent of behavioral evidence for a phonological-processing deficit, and
imaging studies provide a convergent picture (Georgiewa et al.,
1999; Pugh et al., 1997; Rumsey et al., 1999; Shaywitz et al.,
1998; Small, Flores, & Noll, 1998). In particular, dyslexics
show lower levels of activation in both left frontal and temporoparietal regions compared with skilled readers (Rumsey et
al., 1999; Shaywitz et al., 1998). Recent evidence adds an intriguing possibility that the processing problems of dyslexics
may depend on the writing system. For example, a phonological deficit may have more of an impact for a reader of a deep
orthography (e.g., English) than for a reader of a shallow orthography (e.g., Italian), in which spelling-sound correspondences are highly consistent. Paulesu et al. (2001) reported a
brain-imaging study of Italian, English, and French dyslexics.
All three groups were impaired on tests of reading and phonology and showed reduced activity in left-hemisphere regions
implicated in reading. However, the Italian dyslexics performed better on tasks involving the pronunciation of words
and nonwords. The phonological deficit common to all dyslexics in all three languages appears to have had less of an impact
in Italian because it is a shallow orthography.
Finally, both left frontal (Fiez, 1997) and basal temporal regions (Price, 1998) have been identified as candidates for semantic processing (which has been studied using tasks that
require the retrieval of word names and concepts). Different
kinds of dyslexia have been linked to these two regions: developmental phonological dyslexia to left frontal and temporoparietal regions, and acquired surface dyslexia to basal temporal
lesions. Surface dyslexics, who experience reading problems as
a result of brain damage, have problems with reading words
lexically, as whole words (as opposed to reading sublexical
units). Thus, their problem is manifest on words that contain
inconsistently pronounced spelling patterns, or so-called irregular words (e.g., choir). Patients with basal temporal lesions
tend to show the same problem when reading words, as well as
a more general deficit in picture naming (Patterson & Lambon
Ralph, 1999). Although overlapping regions in the basal tem51

poral area are activated during picture and word naming, there
also appears to be differential activation (across frontal vs. posterior areas of the fusiform gyrus) for naming pictures versus
naming words (Moore & Price, 1999). Interestingly, frontal
and temporal regions found to be activated in studies of reading
alphabetic systems overlap with those found to be activated in
reading Chinese (Chee, Tan, & Thiel, 1999; Tan et al., 2000).
ERPs
Complementary to the spatial information from fMRI and
PET are the time-sensitive recordings obtained from ERPs,
measures of electrical activity from electrodes placed on the
surface of the head. The voltages associated with brain activity
vary in both polarity and magnitude over time, resulting in a
series of electrical peaks and valleys that can reflect the dynamics of reading over a few milliseconds. ERP evidence has provided information about the time course of events associated
with reading, confirming ideas about the rapidity of orthographic and phonological processing. Word-level processes are
observed within 130 to 200 ms after the onset of a word (Posner, Abdullaev, McCandliss, & Sereno, 1999; Posner & DiGirolamo, 2000; Rudell & Hua, 1997; Sereno, Rayner, & Posner,
1998). Orthographic processes are observed within 200 ms in
occipital and occipitotemporal regions, and mainly in the left
hemisphere (Bentin, Mouchetant-Rostaing, Giard, Echallier, &
Pernier, 1999; Martin-Loeches, Hinojosa, Gomez-Jarabo, & Rubia, 1999), consistent with the idea that learned forms of the
writing system acquire a functionally distinct status within the
visual processing system. For orthographic inputs that allow
phonological processing, a second stage of processing is reached
in temporal areas within 350 ms. For inputs that are processed
to the semantic level, anterior temporal and frontal regions show
their roles within 400 to 450 ms.
Thus, various methods, including eye movement, brain-imaging, and ERP studies, converge on a coherent picture of word
reading as a rapid process from graphic input to phonological
and meaning outputs distributed across functional brain regions.
Implications for learning to read
The knowledge gained from neuroscience methods is becoming informative with respect to questions about skilled
reading and reading problems. The big question for learning to
read, how the brain supports the acquisition of reading skill, remains to be addressed. However, there are studies that illustrate
the promise of neuroscience methods for showing how the brain
responds to training. For example, repeated practice affects ERP
components, presumably reflecting gains in efficiency through
specific learning (Rudell & Hua, 1997). Moreover, such learning can actually influence brain development and neuronal connectivity. A recent fMRI study found a thicker band of callosal
connective fibers between parietal lobes for literate than for illiterate adults (Castro-Caldas et al., 1999). A study designed to
shift an acquired dyslexic from a whole-word reading strategy
52
to a phonological strategy found that activation patterns in the

brain changed following the intervention (Small et al., 1998).
In both studies, learning apparently produced an alteration in
brain circuitry, and there is the implication that neuronal connectivity remains plastic into adulthood.
We can illustrate the effect of learning on brain circuitry for
an ability assumed to be central to learning to readphonological processing. Castro-Caldas et al. (1999) examined oral language processing in illiterate adults in Portugal (this group was
fully functional socially; illiteracy was widespread in rural portions of Portugal until recently). The key comparisons concerned performance and brain activations for the literate versus
illiterate participants when they repeated words or pseudowords
spoken to them. With real words, the literate and illiterate participants performed comparably and showed similar brain-activation patterns. But with pseudowords, the illiterate participants
performed more poorly than the literate participants, and their
brain-activation patterns were not the same. Castro-Caldas et
al. suggested that literacy acquired during childhood affects the
functional organization of the brain. Cognitive neuroscience
methods promise to be useful for investigating many topics in
the study of readingthe components of word identification,
cross-language comparisons, the acquisition of skill, and even
comprehension. There remains much to learn about the specific
brain regions that support these specific processes. And there is
much more to learn about how the brain reorganizes itself during learning to read.
USING CONNECTIONIST MODELS TO
UNDERSTAND READING AND DYSLEXIA
The tools available to study reading have expanded in recent
years to include computational models, which are computer
programs that simulate detailed aspects of how children learn
to read, of skilled reading, and of dyslexia. So, for example, a
model might be taught to recognize letter strings and compute
their meanings or pronunciations using the same principles
thought to govern childrens performance. Such models complement behavioral and neuroimaging studies that have provided the main empirical evidence concerning reading. The
models typically focus on components of the reading system
such as eye movements (Reichle et al., 1998), pronunciation
(Coltheart et al., 1993; Coltheart, Rastle, Perry, Langdon, &
Ziegler, 2001), and orthographic processing (Grainger & Jacobs, 1994).
In focusing on connectionist models in this section, our goal
is not to assess whether they provide better explanations of
reading than other models, such as the dual-route model developed by Coltheart and colleagues (Coltheart et al., 1993, 2001).
The connectionist and dual-route models account for many of
the same phenomena, and the differences between them are not
highly relevant to the issues discussed here. We use connectionist models to illustrate how important phenomena in word
reading, learning to read, and dyslexia can be understood

within relatively simple systems that learn to translate between
orthographic, phonological, and semantic codes.
Connectionist models are useful for several reasons. First,
they incorporate ways of thinking about how knowledge is represented, acquired, and used that may deviate from intuitive accounts of cognitive phenomena. For example, words are not
represented as entries in a mental lexicon but rather as patterns
of activation over units encoding orthographic, phonological,
and semantic information. This notion invites reconsidering the
data previously taken as evidence for other types of mechanisms. Second, connectionist models attempt to achieve theoretical generality by explaining reading in terms of basic
principles of learning, knowledge representation, and information processing that govern many aspects of language and cognition. This approach is consistent with the observation that
reading, a relatively recent development in human culture, relies on capacities that evolved for other purposes.
Third, the models provide a strong method for testing the
adequacy of theoretical proposals. With the more informal approach to theorizing characteristic of much reading research, it
is not always clear if the proposed mechanisms work in the intended ways. Connectionist models provide a unique way to
test causal hypotheses about the bases of normal and disordered reading. Consider the long-standing debate about methods for teaching reading. Phonics methods assume that learning
the relationship between the written and spoken forms of language is an important step in becoming a skilled reader. Wholelanguage methods assume that using phonological information
distracts the beginning reader from the goal of learning to read
for meaning; hence, the approach emphasizes instructional practices that promote the development of literacy rather than phonological decoding. There are plausible intuitive arguments for
both approaches. One way to assess these competing claims is
by conducting studies in which a model is trained in different
ways. Modeling complements field studies by providing insight about why particular outcomes are obtained, and it allows
close control over potentially confounding factors.
In a connectionist model, units are linked to one another to

form a network; when a letter string is presented as an input,
the corresponding units are activated, and this activation
spreads to other units (representing phonological or semantic
information). The connections between units carry weights that
determine how much activation is passed along. The goal is to
find weights that allow the model to perform these computations proficiently; learning means adjusting the weights on the
basis of experience. The word-reading models have used a
learning procedure (backpropagation) in which the output that
the model produces for a word is compared with the correct,
target pattern. Small adjustments to the weights are made on
the basis of discrepancy between the two. Performance improves gradually as the weights assume values that minimize
this discrepancy. Backpropagation is a kind of learning algorithm in which the output the model computes is compared
with a target pattern (see Hinton, 1989, for an overview).
Whether the brain uses this algorithm or others that have very
similar effects is a topic of current research. Although the
learning procedure used in the reading models is undoubtedly
simplified, it captures basic elements of how learning occurs in
this and other domains.
Behavior in connectionist networks (as in people) is determined by both constitution and experience. The reading models (see Fig. 9), for example, were constructed with the capacity
to represent different lexical codes (orthography, phonology,
semantics) and the capacity to learn. These representations are
themselves thought to have resulted from the joint influence of
biological endowment and experience. Like children, the models learn through exposure to many examples (e.g., letter patterns paired with pronunciations or meanings). The fact that
words are internally structured emerges through exposure to a
large ensemble of words that overlap in different ways and degrees. The models gradually pick up on this structure because it
allows phonological and semantic codes to be computed more
efficiently.
Insights From Connectionist Models
Basic Elements of Connectionist Models of Reading

Most connectionist models use distributed representations,
in which spelling, sound, and meaning are represented by small
sets of units that participate in many words (Hinton, McClelland, & Rumelhart, 1986). For example, a model might include
units that correspond to phonetic features, and each such unit is
activated for all the words that contain that sound. Like other
aspects of the theoretical framework, the use of distributed representations is motivated by the desire to use mechanisms that
are consistent with evidence about brain function; in this case,
the use of distributed representations is consistent with the fact
that large networks of neurons encode information in the brain.
Connectionist models also include hidden units that allow the
network to encode more complex mappings between orthographic, phonological, and semantic codes.
Connectionist models provide a new perspective on many of

the issues discussed in this monograph. Here we focus on three
issues that have been the focus of considerable debate among
reading researchers.
How do children learn the correspondences between spelling
and sound?
We noted earlier that learning about the correspondences
between the written and spoken forms of words is a critical
step in becoming a skilled reader. However, English is notorious for having many exception words that have irregular pronunciations (e.g., give, said, was, have, does). Many of these
are high-frequency words that are among the first that beginning readers must master. As noted earlier, Smith (1973) argued that because of these irregularities, reading that involves
53
Fig. 9. The connectionist model developed by Seidenberg and McClelland (1989), who implemented the orthography-phonology pathway. Harm and Seidenbergs (2001) model includes both the orthographyphonology pathway and the orthography-phonology-semantics pathway.
In both models, words are pronounced by activating a set of orthographic units, which pass activation to the phonological units along
weighted connections. Meanings are computed using input from both
orthography-semantics and orthography-phonology-semantics components. The unlabeled ovals represent hidden units, which allow the
network to learn complex mappings between codes. From A Distributed, Developmental Model of Word Recognition and Naming, by
M.S. Seidenberg and J.L. McClelland, 1989, Psychological Review, 96,
p. 526. Copyright 1989 by the American Psychological Association.
Reprinted with permission of the authors.
phonological recoding (i.e., translating from spelling to sound

to meaning) cannot be efficient. Connectionist models suggest
that this reasoning is flawed.
Seidenberg and McClellands (1989) model learned the pronunciations of both regular words such as gave and exceptions
such as have with relatively little training (at most 250 trials,
for very low-frequency exceptions such as torque; most words
were learned with many fewer trials). Acquisition is rapid because what is learned about one word (e.g., gave) also applies
to overlapping words (save and gate). The same thing is true
for exceptions: The models performance on have benefits from
exposure to overlapping words such as had, has, and hive.
Thus, the same network and learning procedure are used for all
words; regular and exception words differ only in the degree to
which their spelling-sound correspondences overlap with those
of other words. Learning the exceptions is less of a problem
than Smith (1973) asserted because they are not arbitrary and
the learning procedure is efficient.
How does phonological awareness develop?
Earlier we noted that there is a reciprocal relationship between the development of segmental phonemic representations
54
and learning to read. Prereaders knowledge of phonological

structure is causally related to success in learning to read; at the
same time, learning to read changes the nature of phonological
representations, making them more segmental. Connectionist
models provide additional insight about the mechanisms underlying the interactions between phonological knowledge and
reading. Children come to the task of reading with extensive
knowledge of spoken language, but their knowledge of phonological structure is relatively coarse; being able to tell that bag
and bat are different spoken words can be done on the basis of
nonsegmental information. Phonological representations are
further shaped by childrens participation in reading.
To make this point concrete, Harm and Seidenberg (1999)
developed a model of the orthography-phonology mapping that
was trained in two phases. The first phase, which involved exposing the model to the phonological forms of words, was
meant to capture the kinds of phonological knowledge children
acquire from speech. The second phase involved training the
model to map from orthography to the pretrained phonological
system. Learning this mapping changed the organization of
phonology, promoting clearer representations of subword units
such as phonemes, onsets, and rimes. The development of
these representations in turn facilitated learning to read additional words.
What was crucial in the model was not having full phonemic representations prior to reading (though that would be useful) but rather having the capacity to develop such representations
with reading experience. Reducing this capacity interfered with
the development of subword units; thus, when the model was
exposed to a word such as gave, there was less carryover to
partially overlapping words such as save. Two consequences of
this limitation were observed. First, the model took much
longer to learn the phonological codes for words. Second, it
generalized poorly; lacking knowledge of subword structures,
it could not piece together the pronunciations of novel words
very well. The model did not address many aspects of phonological development, and further research is needed. However,
the initial results provide additional causal evidence linking the
development of phonological representations and the acquisition of reading skill. Moreover, the modeling suggests that constitutional differences in the capacity to encode phonological
structure may contribute to variable outcomes in learning to
read. Finally, it suggests that segmental representations are
closely tied to knowledge of orthography rather than speech.
Is word reading direct or phonologically mediated?
As noted earlier, there has been a long-standing debate
about whether words are recognized visually (by a direct mapping between orthographic patterns and meanings) or via phonology. Harm and Seidenberg (2001) attempted to break this
impasse by treating the issue as a computational one: How
does a connectionist model learn to compute meanings quickly
and accurately? That is, what division of labor does the model
converge on, given the availability of both pathways? The anVOL. 2, NO. 2, NOVEMBER 2001

swer is that Harm and Seidenbergs model pooled the input
from both sources for almost all words. Given orthographic input, the semantic pattern that was computed reflected the joint
effects of both pathways. This property contrasts with the independence of the orthography-semantics and orthography-phonology-semantics pathways in race models (Paap & Noel,
1991), in which meaning is accessed by the process that finishes first. The connectionist model performs more efficiently,
using both pathways rather than either one in isolation; thus, it
is a question not of which pathway wins the race, but rather of
how the pathways cooperatively solve the problem.
Early in the models training, semantic activation is largely
driven by input from the orthography-phonology-semantics
pathway. The phonology-semantics component is trained prior
to the introduction of orthography on the view that prereaders
possess this knowledge from their use of spoken language. The
orthography-phonology mapping is easy to learn because the
codes are highly correlated; the orthography-semantics pathway takes longer to become established because the mapping is
more arbitrary. Over time, however, the orthography-semantics
pathway begins to exert its influence, particularly for high-frequency words. Note, however, that what changes is the relative
division of labor between the two pathways; there is some input from both pathways for almost all words.
In summary, the division-of-labor model explains why the
phonological pathway predominates in early reading. However,
it also contradicts the intuition that the orthography-semantics
association is too arbitrary to play a useful role. Given the cooperation between the pathways, the orthography-semantics
pathway only has to be good enough to clean up the pattern activated via phonology. When the model is trained to a high
level of proficiency, both pathways contribute significantly.
Summary
Connectionist models have provided insights about many
aspects of normal reading and reading impairments. The models have brought new ideas about learning and information processing into discussions of reading, lending support to some
claims (e.g., about the role of phonology in reading ability and
disability) while challenging others (e.g., that rule-governed forms
and exceptions are processed by distinct subsystems). Although considerable progress has been made, the models raise
many questions that need to be addressed in future research.
The models do not address all aspects of reading; their implications concerning instruction and remediation have not been explored in depth; and it will be necessary to link the models more
closely to the evidence concerning the brain bases of lexical
processing that is emerging from neuroimaging (see the previous discussion in The View From Cognitive Neuroscience).
The goal of developing an integrated account of reading behavior and its brain bases, with computational models providing
the interface between the two, nonetheless seems a realistic one
and is likely to be the focus of considerable research.
METHODS OF TEACHING READING

Much of the history of reading instruction in the United States
has involved two general methods: whole-word instruction and
phonics instruction. However, meaning-emphasis instruction,
and especially whole-language instruction, has dominated the
philosophy of training of reading teachers over the past 20
years. Originally, the time-honored ABC method was used to
teach reading for about 200 years. This method was a basic
type of phonics instruction in which children were taught letter
names, then simple syllables, then words. The child would
spell the syllable and then pronounce it: double-you-ay-ell-ell
wall. Later, more syllables and words were mixed in, usually
with the same spelling requirement prior to pronunciation. The
New England Primer, Websters Spelling Books, and McGuffeys
Readers were the major sources of reading programs from the
1700s until the 1900s. Pictures were introduced into these programs, but for the most part the emphasis was on phonics drill.
Although there is little evidence indicating how successful the
ABC method was in teaching reading, there apparently was
some dissatisfaction with it because educational reforms in the
late 19th century led to the whole-word method becoming the
predominant method of teaching reading. More recently, the
whole-word method has been supplanted by whole-language
instruction. In this section, we describe each method of instruction.
Whole-Word Instruction
To some extent, ideas about whole-word instruction are congruent in a general way with facts about spoken language. Spoken language is an almost continuous stream of sound with
little or no silence separating the individual words, a fact that is
especially noticeable when one tries to pick out word boundaries in a foreign language. However, compared with phonemes, words are more readily detected as units, and children
come to recognize the spoken word as a meaningful unit. The
relative invisibility of phonemes encouraged the view that
whole words are the appropriate units for instruction. Typically
in this kind of instruction, the child is shown a flash card with a
word on it, and the teacher pronounces it and asks the child to
say it. Generally, the teacher starts with a small set of words
and gradually expands the set.
Another argument that has been used to support the wholeword approach is the low reliability of letter-to-phoneme mapping, a complex issue that we discussed in previous sections.
The irregularity of English spellings, which occurs mainly in
the vowel system, allows the word pint a different pronunciation than most words that end in int, which are pronounced as
in hint. Similarly, have is irregular because most words that
end in ave are pronounced as in gave. Irregular words such as
pint and have, in any approach to teaching reading, must be
learned at least partly in terms of their distinctive properties.
The whole-word approach generalizes this approach to learning to read all or most words.
55

Advocates of the whole-word approach have also argued
that it promotes reading for meaning at an early stage of reading. Words have meanings; speech sounds do not. When a child
has developed a small sight vocabulary, this vocabulary is deployed in various combinations to construct meaningful sentences, and new words are introduced so that the context clarifies their meaning. The pronunciation is given by the teacher,
who indicates, wherever possible, the similarity in spelling between the word to be read and a word already in the sight vocabulary. This makes it possible (after an initial sight vocabulary
is established) to emphasize that the letter symbols represent
sounds.
Phonics Instruction
Phonics instruction, in its purest form, starts with a limited
set of correspondences between letters and speech sounds.
These letters are used immediately to build many different kinds
of words. In this way, phonics instruction takes advantage of the
productive aspects of alphabetic writing systems. Gradually,
more letters are added, and then consonant digraphs (th, ch) and
eventually consonant clusters (st, tr) are introduced. As simple
words are presented over and over, the child also naturally develops a sight vocabulary during these early stages, but the development of a sight vocabulary is largely incidental in phonics
instruction (much as knowledge of the alphabetic principle is
incidental in whole-word instruction). The individual letters are
taught by the sounds they make, and then children are induced
to blend the sounds of novel letter combinations.
The main rationale behind a phonics approach is that it explicitly teaches children both the alphabetic principle and the
specific letter-phoneme correspondences that generalize across
many English words. An additional benefit of phonics is that it
promotes an analytic approach to words that can serve the child
in encounters with unknown words. One criticism of phonics,
repeated for more than 100 years (M.J. Adams, 1990), is that it
is boring for the child. The reason for this criticism is the emphasis phonics places on letter-sound correspondences at the
expense of reading for meaning. However, this complaint is
more often about the practice of phonics lessons, which are often derided as rote drill, than about the essence of the approach. The teaching of letter-phoneme correspondences is not
the same as phonic drills, as consumers of computer-based
phonics programs can attest. Certainly, some forms of practice
at producing phonemes and blending them together into a word
may at times be boring for children (just as learning basic math
facts may be boring). But learning to read new words independently can be very rewarding for children.
Meaning-Emphasis Instruction
In general, meaning-emphasis programs focus on language
experiences of the child. Thus, the child dictates short stories
and is taught to read the words he or she has dictated. Instruction in learning individual words usually emphasizes memoriz56
ing whole words, though some phonics drill may be incorporated

into the program at later stages.
Within the class of meaning-emphasis programs are wholelanguage instruction and an earlier related approach, the psycholinguistic approach, based on the work of Goodman and
Smith (Goodman, 1970, 1986; Smith, 1971, 1973; Smith &
Goodman, 1971). Goodman suggested that reading is a psycholinguistic guessing game in which readers try to figure out
the meaning of a text by using a variety of partly redundant cuing systems. There are three types of cues in this guessing
game: semantic, syntactic, and graphophonic. The graphophonic cues represent general knowledge of spelling-sound relations; the syntactic cues represent knowledge of syntactic
patterns and the markers that cue these patterns (such as function words and suffixes); and the semantic cues represent
knowledge about word meanings and the topic. More recently,
Goodmans ideas have been incorporated into the larger wholelanguage instruction movement. This type of instruction, like
other meaning-emphasis approaches, relies heavily on the
childs experience with language. Children are encouraged to
guess words that are presented in the context of short stories,
and the primary motivation of the method is to make reading
fun for the child. Whole-language teaching typically includes
frequent oral reading by the teacher and the use of authentic literature, rather than decodable text.
In an approach that otherwise avoids any specification of
what should be taught, Goodman and Smith provided one clear
suggestion: Phonics should not be taught. Furthermore, they
argued that children should not be corrected when they make
errors reading words. Neither the development of phonological
awareness in general nor the development of specific knowledge about letter-sound correspondences is a priority in wholelanguage instruction. Whole-language advocates do not deny
that phonological awareness and phonics knowledge are components of reading (though they are not considered as central to
the process as the research findings indicate). But they do deny
that the explicit teaching of phonics is necessary. Their basic
argument is that explicit teaching of phonics does more harm
than good to beginning readers because many of them find
phonics somewhat difficult and boring.
Whole-language proponents suggest that the knowledge
necessary for skilled readingincluding phonics knowledge
can develop in the same natural way that spoken language develops. Weaver (1994), for example, in a book aimed at elementary-school teachers, wrote: Just as they learn the patterns
of oral language, so most children will unconsciously learn
common phonics patterns, given ample opportunity to read environmental print and predictable and enjoyable materials, and
ample opportunity to write with invented (constructive) spelling (p. 197).
The various tenets of whole-language teaching are a set of
interrelated ideas that suggest a coherent perspective. The logic
is as follows: (a) Reading is a natural extension of language;
(b) explicit teaching of phonics treats reading as a technical exVOL. 2, NO. 2, NOVEMBER 2001

ercise rather than a natural extension of learning and thus has
the potential to do harm by boring and frustrating the child; (c)
explicit teaching of phonics is unnecessary for learning; (d)
therefore, explicit teaching of phonics should be avoided; and
(e) because phonics represents just one of several redundant
cuing systems, if a child fails to learn some piece of phonics
knowledge, other cuing systems will fill in the gaps when the
child actually reads.
The problem with this method lies not in the logical connections among its tenets, but in the extent to which they are true.
Goodmans suggestion that skilled reading is a psycholinguistics guessing game, for example, has largely been refuted by
research on skilled reading, which demonstrates that skilled
reading is not a guessing game and that phonological information is critically important in word identification. In fact, the
three cuing systems are not equivalent in determining what
word is actually read; the graphophonic mechanism plays a
highly prominent role, particularly in reading acquisition. Furthermore, the view that learning to read, like learning to speak,
is a natural act that the child teaches him- or herself how to do
stands in marked contrast to the view more common among researchersthat learning to read is not a natural act (Gough &
Hillinger, 1980; A. Liberman, 1999), and is very different from
learning to speak, which is effortless and automatic for almost
all children brought up in normal circumstances. No child
needs a teacher to show him or her how to speak. It is sufficient
to be a normally developing human being surrounded by other
human beings speaking their language.
Learning to read presents an entirely different picture. All
schools of thought agree that some amount of teaching is often
(or even always) necessary. In particular, learning to read often
requires some explicit instruction in the alphabetic principle.
Contrast this with learning to speak. No child needs to be
taught the phonemes of his or her language, but every child
needs to be taught the symbols that make up his or her writing
system. That is why there is an alphabet song, but not a phoneme song. Furthermore, though all human societies have language, many do not have reading and writing.
It should be clear that we have some fundamental disagreements with some of the claims made by whole-language advocates. However, to this point, we have presented only arguments
regarding the possible efficacy of whole-language instruction.
In a later section, we review research findings more directly.
Here we do want to note some positive contributions of the
whole-language movement (more recently called literaturebased instruction). First, and foremost, whole-language advocates have focused attention on the need to ensure that children
are enthusiastic about books and eager to learn to read. They
may go too far in their reliance on enthusiasm and eagerness as
components of the process of learning to read, but no one can
doubt the importance of these components, and whole-language proponents have been largely responsible for the growing
trend to make reading instruction more meaningful. Furthermore, they have replaced an emphasis on the teacher as an agent
of instruction with an emphasis on the child as an agent of his

or her own learning. Certainly, appreciating the mutual roles of
learner and teacher is an important step in establishing effective reading instruction, even if learning to read is not natural
and spontaneous.
WHAT HAPPENS IN CLASSROOMS DURING

READING INSTRUCTION?
The way we have discussed different methods used to teach
reading may have implied that the method adopted determines
what actually goes on in the classroom. However, many good
teachers are adaptive rather than rigid in their approach to
teaching children and only loosely base their instruction on a
given method. They know by instinct that when learning is
made meaningful and exciting, children learn more. It should
also be noted that most schools are populated by a couple of
generations of teachers who were taught that whole-language
instruction is good and phonics is evil. So teachers may be
asked to teach phonics and not know how, which also affects
what happens in classrooms.
These days there are a large number of commercially available reading programs in schools. Because these programs can
be rather expensive and because bulk buying is generally
cheaper than buying different programs for different schools,
school districts often adopt a single program for districtwide
use. These programs, called basal reading series, consist of
teacher guides, student materials (e.g., minibooks, anthologies,
and workbooks), and ancillary materials (e.g., letter cards,
posters, and CDs). Although each reading program generally
adheres to one particular method for teaching reading, within
individual classrooms, teachers have some flexibility in what
they actually do if they are trained in a variety of methods.
The key word currently used to describe classroom reading
instruction is balance. Reading instruction that balances instruction in phonics with exposure to good literature and opportunities to write is found more and more in classrooms. However,
what balanced reading instruction involves in practice varies
with respect to the explicitness with which skills are taught, the
kinds of materials used to practice these skills, the size of the instructional group, and the extent to which assessment informs instruction. Truly balanced instruction should integrate skills
instruction with reading for meaning and opportunities to learn
(Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). However, what often happens in
primary-grade classrooms is a fragmentation of the literacy curriculum into activities based on the latest teacher training workshop. More generally, variations in actual classroom practice
roughly fall under two approaches to teaching that we call prescriptive (direct) versus responsive teaching.
Prescriptive Teaching
Reading instruction that explicitly or directly teaches skills
such as letter-sound correspondences typically consists of a
57

curriculum with a prescribed set of activities, which together
are called a scope and sequence. Across kindergarten and first
grade, the curriculum systematically introduces phonological
awareness and phonic skills with practice in decodable texts
(containing letter-sound correspondences taught by the teacher).
Beyond second grade, there is still some phonics in spelling instruction but not in reading instruction.
Instruction based on prescriptive teaching may vary in the
amount of whole-class versus small-group instruction and in
the amount of assessment. For example, the Open Court (2000)
basal reading series emphasizes whole-class instruction and
additional independent practice, with little emphasis on assessment. In contrast, in Reading Mastery (Englemann & Bruner,
1995) reading instruction takes place in groups of six based on
placement tests. The school-reform model Success for All
(Slavin, Madden, Dolan, & Wasik, 1996) has multiple grouping
formatswhole-class instruction according to reading level determined by 8-week assessments, partner reading, independent
reading, and collaborative group work.
First-grade teachers adhering to prescriptive techniques tend
to plan their lessons around the following activities: (a) review
of letter sounds previously taught, (b) introduction of new letter sounds, (c) practice blending sounds into words, (d) practice reading in decodable texts, (e) teacher read-alouds from
childrens literature to teach vocabulary and comprehension
strategies, and (f) language arts (spelling, writing, grammar,
and mechanics). For example, in the Open Court reading pro-
gram, the teacher introduces /e/ (which corresponds to the linguistic symbol //) spelled e by hanging the sound-spelling
card hen on the wall (along with the other sound-spelling cards
already introduced). The capital and lowercase printing of the
letter (E e) is at the top, the picture of the keywordhenappears below, and in a green field at the bottom is the printed letter e (see Fig. 10). The children have been taught that the green
field denotes short vowel sounds.
At the start of the lesson, the teacher reads the decodable
story Jens HenJens pet hen likes to peck, peck, peck. She
pecks at a speck on the new red deck. This is how her pecking
sounds: /e/ /e/ /e/ /e/ /e/. Then, the teacher asks the children to
listen to words and to signal thumbs-up when they hear a word
that has the /e/ sound at the beginning or at the middle of the
word. So, the children give a thumbs-up to ever, etch, every,
and echo, but not hand or flavor, for /e/ sounds at the beginning, and a thumbs-up for hen, pest, wet, desk, next, bed, and
feather, but not for tape or bike, for /e/ sounds at the middle of
the word. In the next step, the teacher has the children blend
words (both in isolation and in sentences) that contain short e.
A specific procedure is outlined for teaching blending. For example, to blend fed, the child is taught to isolate the initial
sound (/f/) and the medial sound (/e/), then to combine them (/fe/)
before adding the final sound (/d/) to produce the entire word
(/fed/). Finally, the phonics lesson ends by practicing the accumulating letter sounds in Jens Pen (see Fig. 11). Before reading the story, the teacher reviews the high-frequency words
Fig. 10. A first-grade teacher pointing to the sound-spelling card for /e/ in Open Court Reading (2000).
58
Fig. 11. Page 3 from the phonics minibook Jens Pen. From Collections for Young Scholars, by Open Court Reading, 2000, Chicago:
SRA/McGraw-Hill. Copyright 2000 by SRA/McGraw-Hill. Reprinted
with permission.
would, my, did, laugh, out, her, of, and move and teaches two
new nondecodable words, darts and feeds. The teacher notes
that one word with a variant spelling for short e (i.e., __ea_
in bread) is included in the story. This emphasis on decoding
instruction is complemented in the language arts section of the
lesson by teaching children to encode the sound-spelling /e/
through dictation practice.
Responsive Teaching
In contrast to prescriptive teaching, responsive teaching is
loosely based on the constructivist notion of scaffolding (see
Foorman, Francis, Shaywitz, Shaywitz, & Fletcher, 1997, for
further discussion). Rather than working from a scope and sequence, the responsive teacher responds to what the child is
perceived to need at the moment in the context of reading real
books. The teacher provides a scaffold against which the child
can construct knowledge of reading. Like whole-language instruction, responsive teaching is steeped in the belief that children inherit three cuing systems (syntactic, semantic, and
graphophonic knowledge) from their oral language abilities.
For example, in the tutorial program Reading Recovery (Clay,
1993), the classroom teacher not only provides feedback on
oral reading errors, but also responds to an error by extending

the childs knowledge of the alphabetic system. Furthermore,
the responsive teacher keeps a running record of reading miscues to inform the next days alphabetic activities of making
words and breaking words into constituent elements. Because
instruction in alphabetic coding is conducted incidentally in the
context of reading books, responsive teaching methods inherently lack a systematic approach to phonics instruction. The
absence of sequential instruction and practice makes it difficult
for many children to acquire and transfer decoding skills.
Responsive teaching can be highly effective when knowledgeable teachers work with individual children. But responsive teaching in the hands of a teacher who does not have the
knowledge to seize the moment productively or who is teaching a large group of heterogeneous readers may be ineffective
with the lower-achieving students. A popular system for responsive teaching at the classroom level is Guided Reading
(Fountas & Pinnell, 1996). Guided reading starts with wholeclass discussion of a reading selection to elicit prior knowledge
and introduce difficult vocabulary. Then the teacher scaffolds
childrens reading of the passage in whole-group, small-group,
or partner-reading formats. If a small-group format is adopted,
children work in centers or independently while the teacher
works with one reading group after the other.
The current basal reading series have accommodated guided
reading by providing leveled text (i.e., texts that are ordered by
difficulty, according to a number of factors such as number of
words, predictability of syntactic patterns, word frequency, and
picture clues). These texts stand in contrast to the decodable
texts of the prescriptive approach because they are selected for
their sense of story and predictable syntactic patterns, and
words are selected for frequency, not for sound-spelling patterns. But the issue of what makes text decodable for which
readers at which phase of reading development is a largely unanswered empirical question (Juel & Roper/Schneider, 1985;
Pearson, 1999). An example of leveled text is shown in Figure
12. The pages in this figure are from the story The Bus Ride
(Scott, Foresman and Company, 1976), which is appropriate
for mid-fall of first grade. In contrast to Jens Pen (Fig. 11),
which shows tight control on vocabulary with an emphasis on
the /e/ sound from the lesson and previously taught lettersounds, The Bus Ride emphasizes the predictable pattern got
off/on the bus.
Because of the new emphasis on phonological awareness
and phonics, guided reading now includes a separate emphasis
on words (P.M. Cunningham, 1995; Fountas & Pinnell, 1998).
This means that in addition to guided reading, independent
reading, and process writing blocks of an integrated readinglanguage period, many primary-grade classrooms now include
a block of time devoted to word-level activities. During this
daily block, the teacher teaches children how to read and spell
high-frequency words and discusses strategies for decoding
and spelling. P.M. Cunningham (1999) developed a curriculum
of activities for word work (e.g., organizing words on a wall
59
Fig. 12. Four pages from The Bus Ride. The top left panel is the second page of text in
the book. The top right panel shows the third page. The book continues with a number of
animals getting on the bus, followed by the page (p. 22 in the book) in the lower left
panel, which emphasizes the predictable sequence the [animal] got off the bus. The
lower right panel (p. 24 in the book) shows the different animals in the story. From The
Bus Ride, by Scott, Foresman and Company, 1976, Glenview, IL: Pearson Group. Copyright 1976 by Scott, Foresman and Company. Reprinted with permission.
chart according to letter-sound patterns, building words with

magnetic letters, using words you know, guessing the missing
word in a sentence). These activities all emphasize analogical
reasoning around onsets and orthographic rimes, in contrast to
60
the synthetic phonics approach taken by the majority of prescriptive teaching approaches. That is, a responsive teacher will
have children sort printed words by initial sounds and then by
word families (such as the ould in could). The danger is that

these strategies can result in a look-at-first-letter-then-guess decoding strategy such as pronouncing shot as ship or categorizing only by rimes (make, bake, rake) rather than also by vowel
spellings (make, rain, play, eight). Full mastery of the alphabetic system requires understanding how spellings represent
speech sounds, and the inconsistency of this mapping for vowels provides a challenge for beginning readers of English (see
Fig. 2). However, as we discuss in the section on research findings, there is an adequate empirical base to support phonics
over nonphonics instruction, but not an adequate base to support one type of phonics instruction over another (e.g., synthetic vs. analogical).
Summary: Balanced Reading Instruction
In the first years of the new millennium, the language of balanced reading instruction has swept Americas classrooms and
basal textbook market. However, underlying the rhetoric lurks
the reality of the debate over reading methods. Prescriptive
teaching follows a scope and sequence of phonic elements,
with texts based on the accumulating set of letter-sound correspondences taught. Responsive teaching eschews a scope and
sequence in favor of strategies that enable the child to construct
meaning in texts leveled by difficulty according to a number of
factors (such as word frequency). Recently, responsive teachers
have begun to attend more to word-level work that emphasizes
an analogical approach to reading and spelling words and are
often turning to phonics kits to supplement their letter-sound
instruction. Unfortunately, the continued dichotomy of reading
philosophies produces fragmented instruction in classrooms
rather than the integrated balance of skills and meaningful applications that research suggests are needed to produce successful readers.
READING INSTRUCTION IS A POLITICALLY

CHARGED ISSUE
During the 1990s, concerns about the effectiveness of reading instruction led to what are often called reading wars in a
number of states where state officials became very involved in
debates about reading instruction. In this section, we focus on
Texas, California, and Massachusetts as examples of how politically charged the issue is. We also note that concerns among
many parents have led to increased enrollments in many private
schools. In general, this trend has occurred because many private schools have relied on phonics instruction, whereas many
public school systems have used whole-language approaches to
teaching reading.
Because of their large populations, Texas and California
have had special status since the 1960s in decisions regarding
the adoption of basal readers. The readers adopted by school
districts in Texas and California often become the textbooks for
the entire nation. Both states have grass-roots parents organizations and business coalitions that push educational agendas
which affect national educational policy (such as Californias

Proposition 227 ending bilingual education in 1998). In Texas,
the classic example of a politician involved in educational issues is Ex-Governor George W. Bush, who made education
(and, in particular, reading) the focus of election campaigns,
with a rallying call of All children shall read at or above grade
level by third grade!
In the 1980s, the book A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for
Educational Reform (National Commission on Excellence in
Education, 1983) inspired a number of educational reforms. In
Texas, the legislature passed reforms establishing minimum
passing scores for courses and tests, minimum competency
tests for teachers, and a no passno play rule that prohibited
students who failed from participating in extracurricular activities. Legislation established an accountability system tied to
students performance on statewide tests and the development
in the early 1990s of the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills
(TAAS). Much has been written (see McNeil, 2000) about
Texass experience with the TAAS as the epitome of the negative consequences of high-stakes testing (e.g., bonuses to administrators and bribes to students led to test anxiety, cheating,
and a TAAS-oriented curriculum). However, the public display
of TAAS results school by school in local newspapers and
across the state in the magazine Texas Monthly resulted in a
groundswell of parent and business involvement in school reform at the local and state level. Much of this groundswell of
parents was a cry of We want more phonics! directed at local
school boards and the state school board. In fact, phonics advocates joined forces with social conservatives on the state board
of education to try to mandate a phonics-oriented scope-andsequence set of standards. Although this attempt failed, the social conservatives and phonics advocates were successful in
passing a mandate that first-grade texts selected during the
basal-reader adoption process be 80% decodable.
Texas also institutionalized its reading initiative at the localdistrict level. This was accomplished through several steps.
First, a reading czar, who reported directly to the commissioner
of education, was appointed at the Texas Education Agency,
and this model was followed by several of the large school districts across the state. Second, the governors office worked
with the legislature to fund reading-related initiatives, such as
early-reading assessments, early-reading interventions, and 4
days of professional development for the states 40,000 kindergarten through second-grade teachers. Third, the states curriculum standards were approved by a consensus committee, and
textbooks that were subsequently adopted were aligned with
the state standards. Fourth, coalitions of business leaders, university researchers, and professional educators used TAAS data
and research findings to spearhead school reform in low-performing schools. At each step, districts are expected to make
their own decisions about how state directives will be achieved.
For example, districts can use accelerated learning funds for
whatever early-reading intervention programs they want, but
are held accountable for student outcomes. Additionally, dis61

tricts choose from the commissioners list of approved instruments which early-reading assessment will be administered.
In contrast to Texass local-control approach to reading reform, California implemented a top-down approach that was a
result of the states plummeting scores on national assessment
tests. From the early 1980s to 1994, California went from near
the top to near the bottom in national comparisons. In 1995, the
state superintendent of public schools put together a reading
task force that prepared guidelines for reading reform. In that
same year, the legislature passed the ABC Bill, which mandated explicit teaching of phonics, spelling, and math. This was
followed by legislation providing money for staff development
for teachers and administrators in effective early-reading techniques, including techniques for systematic, explicit instruction
in phonics. In 1996, the California Department of Education
released a program advisory on reading and language arts instruction, which was followed by the Reading/Language Arts
Framework in 1999. Both documents were written by outside
experts. While all of this was going on, California was also reducing class size, setting up an accountability system, calling
for another textbook adoption, and eliminating bilingual education. With so much change occurring so fast, it is not surprising
that Californias reading-reform movement was severely criticized by university faculty and teachers (see Dressman, 1999;
Mathes & Torgesen, 2000).
In Massachusetts, the situation was slightly different. Public
education in Massachusetts has traditionally been much more
decentralized than in Texas or California. There has typically
been no statewide textbook adoption, and little history of state
involvement in curriculum choice. These matters have been
largely left up to local school systems. The 1993 passage of the
Massachusetts Education Reform Act was thus a notable departure from tradition. Education reform promised major increases in state funding for public education. In exchange,
local school systems were required to meet new state curricular
standards, which were to be drawn up by committees appointed
by the Massachusetts Department of Education and approved
by the state Board of Education. The standards were to be enforced through a program of statewide testing.
Despite the traditional lack of centralized control, the curriculum in Massachusetts public schools looked rather uniform
across the state. This is understandable: As everywhere, teachers and administrators took similar courses at the same handful
of universities, attended the same workshops, and bought the
same textbooks, responding to national trends and fashions.
Consequently, reading instruction in Massachusetts was strongly
influenced by the whole-language movement in the early 1990s.
It is thus not surprising that the committee of educators charged
with drawing up the curriculum framework on English language
arts produced a document heavily influenced by the whole-language approach. The document that they produced contained
no mention whatsoever of the scientific literature on reading,
yet claimed support from research. It highlighted the idea that
children could learn to read the same way they learned to
62
talkand presented a vision of language acquisition that attributed the process to curiosity and enthusiasm alone. Crucially,
the document claimed support from research on language:
In the past, research focused on the components of languagephonological and grammatical units. As a result, we understood and taught
the language processes as separate entities characterized by discrete
skills. More recently, language researchers have shifted their focus to
study language from the perspective of its primary functioncommunication. (Massachusetts Department of Education, 1995, p. 14)
By analogy, the same shift was endorsed in reading instruction.

As it happens, Massachusetts is home to well-known centers of research in linguistics and the psychology of reading at
the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University
of Massachusetts at Amherst. Once the content of the proposed
curriculum document became known to some of these researchers, a letter signed by 40 researchers in linguistics and
psychology was sent to the Commissioner of Education on July
12, 1995. The letter objected to the documents claims about
language and reading:
We want to alert the educational authorities of Massachusetts to the
fact that the view of language research presented in this document is
inaccurate, and that the claimed consequences for reading instruction
should therefore be subjected to serious re-examination.
The facts are as follows. Language research continues to focus on
the components of language, because this focus reflects the modular
nature of language itself. Written language is a notation for the structures and units of one of these components. Sound methodology in
reading instruction must begin with these realities. Anything else will
shortchange those students whom these standards are supposed to
help.
We are concerned that the Commonwealth, through its powers to
set standards for schools, should presume to legislate an erroneous
view of how human language works, a view that runs counter to most
of the major scientific results of more than 100 years of linguistics and
psycholinguistics. We are even more concerned that uninformed
thinking about language should lie at the heart of a standards document for Massachusetts schools.
By chance, the letter came along just as the reading wars

were heating up in other states, and attracted considerable attention. Massachusetts responded quite positively, first revising
its curriculum framework and finally rewriting it completely.
The commonwealths curriculum document (though controversial in other ways) has won praise for being a lucid and scientifically accurate description of the reading process that at least
points to acceptable standards for early-reading instruction. In
a sense, the Massachusetts story represents a victory for sound
educational practice. Nonetheless, it is unclear how much has
really changed for Massachusetts schoolchildren now that
Massachusetts has a scientifically sound document underlying
its standards for reading instruction. The most recent round of
state testing continues to reveal harsh differences between rich
and poor communities in reading achievement, and there is little sign that teachers are being educated about the research litVOL. 2, NO. 2, NOVEMBER 2001

erature that underlies the commonwealths current standards
document.
Massachusetts, Texas, and California each reveal part of the
way out of the reading wars. It is helpful when the research
community is mobilized and gets itself involved, as happened
in Massachusetts. But researchers do not make policy and do
not teach young children to read. For true progress, there must
be guidance from above, as in California, supporting and fostering strong local interest and enthusiasm from both parents
and teachers, as in Texas.
Many obstacles stand in the way of this sort of progress.
One is the peculiar alignment (particularly in North America)
of phonics with conservative politics. Considerable publicity
for the Massachusetts researchers letter was generated by conservative newsletters and Web sites (a bit of an irony for a letter
signed by 40 Massachusetts professors, including several wellknown leftist activists). In like fashion, writings from the
whole-language community proclaim that the essence of this
approach lies not in its particular ideas about reading, but in its
belief in the empowerment of learners and teachers and the
acceptance of all learners and the languages, cultures and experiences they bring to their education (Whole Language Umbrella, 2000)as if a pedagogy based on the alphabetic
principle was inevitably inconsistent with empowerment and
acceptance. In reality, of course, the pedagogy that empowers
most is the pedagogy that teaches best.
RESEARCH FINDINGS ON TEACHING READING

We turn now to research findings related to how to best
teach reading skills. We begin by reviewing two well-known
summaries of research on teaching reading and then providing
overviews of the findings of two recent reports on the issue: the
National Reading Panel (NRP; 2000) report and a report of the
National Research Council (NRC) called Preventing Reading
Difficulties in Young Children (Snow et al., 1998). We then turn
to a discussion of laboratory and classroom studies.
Meta-Analyses of Teaching Reading
The questions surrounding how reading is most effectively
taught have been the object of several comprehensive reports
over the years, including two major books (M.J. Adams, 1990;
Chall, 1967). The question at the center of Challs Great Debate review was, what does evidence have to say about the effectiveness of direct instructionexplicit phonicscompared
with whole-word instruction or implicit phonics? Should beginning instruction focus on directly teaching the correspondences
between letters and sounds (phonemes)? The logical answer to
this question appears to be that these correspondences, and the
alphabetic principle they instantiate, should be the central initial
focus of instruction. However, the tendencies of actual practice
have been otherwise. As noted earlier, a variety of alternative
pedagogies have emphasized instead meaning-focused instrucVOL. 2, NO. 2, NOVEMBER 2001
tion built around story reading, exposure to print, and enhanced

language environments. These alternatives are too varied to capture with a single characterization. For example, when Chall
coined the term Great Debate in 1967, the alternative to direct
instruction was whole-word teaching, in which basal readers
and limited (and later) phonics instruction were typical components. In the past 20 years, the dominant alternative has been
whole-language instruction. Challs conclusion, based on a
careful analysis of some 22 programs, classroom observations,
and reviews of published studies, was that children who received direct code-based instruction (emphasis on decoding or
phonics) tended to have higher achievement in the first three
grades than did children in whole-word classrooms. Although
initially, for beginning readers, whole-word classrooms performed better on measures of comprehension and reading rate,
in later grades the advantage of decoding-based instruction became highly general, encompassing spelling, word recognition,
and comprehension. This conclusion, in its general form, was
confirmed in later less comprehensive reports.
M.J. Adams (1990) provided a thorough treatment of these
research reports and, more generally, an evaluation of teaching
methods in the context of research findings. Furthermore, she put
the Great Debate in its historical context, and explained why there
has been so much resistance to the direct teaching of decoding.
An emphasis on meaning and comprehension not only coincides
with the main goal of reading, but also appeals to beliefs that the
childs experience in school should reflect purposeful learning in
authentic contexts. In that spirit, the exclusive use of commercially published childrens literature (which is often not decodable) has become characteristic of whole-language classrooms.
Modern phonics advocates point out that there is nothing incompatible between these meaning values and good phonics instruction, which aims to quickly provide the child with the basics of
the letter-sound system and practice with decodable texts while
at the same time introducing childrens literature. Like Chall,
Adams argued that phonics approaches were more successful
than nonphonics approaches in teaching children to read.
The NRC report

The NRC (the research arm of the National Academy of
Sciences) revisited this issue in its report Preventing Reading
Difficulties in Young Children (Snow et al., 1998). Unlike reports that have focused on the question of how to teach reading, the NRC report asked how available research findings can
inform recommendations directed at reducing childrens reading difficulties. A distinctive feature of the NRC report was that
it considered early-childhood factors. It reviewed research on
early childhood, including research on parental influences on
cognitive and social development, family literacy, and the role
of preschools as language and literacy environments. It also reviewed the problems of teacher preparation and made specific
recommendations about what teachers need to know about
reading. The report reviewed studies that reported low levels of
63

teacher preparation in the foundations of reading. Adding to
the growing call for stronger teaching preparation, the report
recognized the need to improve both the college education
(preservice training) and the in-service training of teachers.
Although the NRC report steered clear of specific curriculum recommendations, it emphasized the importance of promoting knowledge and practice in decoding. For example, it
recommended that kindergarten instruction be designed to
provide practice with the sound structure of words, the recognition and production of letters, knowledge about print concepts,
and familiarity with the basic purposes and mechanisms of
reading and writing (p. 322). It concluded that research shows
that beginning reading depends critically on mapping the letters and the spellings of words onto the sounds and speech
units that they represent (p. 321). Furthermore, counter to the
idea that somehow comprehension can proceed on its own, the
report added that failure to master word recognition impedes
text comprehension (p. 321).
The reports focus on language and literacy experiences
prior to school and on the importance of decoding knowledge
as a goal of beginning reading instruction achieves a meaningful balance. It is clear that coming to school with certain relevant
skills (some degree of phonological awareness) and dispositions (an interest in books) eases the burden of school instruction. It is equally clear that schooling can organize its efforts
along the lines supported by research, making sure that children acquire the ability to decode words and have sufficient
reading practice to gain fluency and increase comprehension.
The NRP report
In 1997, the U.S. Congress asked the National Institute for
Child Health and Human Development and the Department of
Education to convene a committee to examine applying reading
research to classroom practice. Topics studied by the NRP were
alphabetics (phonological awareness and phonics), fluency, comprehension, how teachers can be taught to teach reading better in
certification and professional development programs, and the
use of computer technology in reading instruction. Meta-analyses based on available data on these topics were undertaken.
The NRP (2000) study is valuable for what it found in the
alphabetics area and what it did not find in the other areas (the
committee decided that there was generally not enough goodquality research to make valid conclusions in some areas). The
report noted the validity of the research we discussed previously in the section on phonological awareness. With respect to
phonics instruction, meta-analyses revealed that (a) systematic
phonics instruction produces significant benefits for students in
kindergarten through sixth grade and for students with reading
disabilities (regardless of SES), (b) the impact of phonics is
strongest in kindergarten and first grade, and (c) phonics must
be integrated with instruction in phonological awareness, fluency, and comprehension. The report noted that a strong empirical base supports the importance of instruction in phonological
awareness, in conjunction with phonics instruction, for the be64
ginning stages of reading instruction. However, the report also

noted that there are not enough data to draw conclusions about
the best way to teach vocabulary, fluency, and comprehension,
or the best way to prepare teachers to teach reading.
Laboratory Studies
The results of some important experimental studies suggest
two interrelated conclusions. First, learning correspondences
between letters and sounds is more productive (so there is more
transfer to new words) than learning whole words, even though
learning whole words may be faster at first. Second, providing
instruction that lets children infer these correspondences may
not be as effective as directly teaching them. The first conclusion was demonstrated by C.H. Bishop (1964), who trained
two groups of adult subjects to respond to novel visual stimuli.
One group learned to make phoneme responses to individual
Arabic letters, whereas the other group learned to make word
responses to strings of Arabic letters. In each case there was a
1:1 correspondence between the graphic stimulus and the pronunciation. In the case of single letters, the correspondence
was between the letter and the phoneme; in the case of the
words, the correspondence was between the printed word and
its pronunciation. Although training was faster for the wholeword group than the letter-phoneme group, transfer showed the
opposite result: The letter-phoneme group could read many
more new words than the whole-word group.
Jeffrey and Samuels (1967) carried out a similar study using
kindergarten children and a set of specially constructed letters.
They found that children who had learned the sounds of individual letters could correctly read many more new words than
could children whose training required them to learn whole
words. Although both groups learned the intended pronunciation of the new words, the word group needed twice as many
trials as the letter group to reach this level of performance.
Thus, laboratory research has long established the value of
learning letter-sound correspondences for productive transfer of
reading skill. Other laboratory studies with children have shown
how difficult acquiring these correspondences can be in the absence of instruction (Byrne, 1984, 1996). Byrne (1991) taught
young children to read one-syllable words by pairing the words
with their meanings; for example, fat was associated with a picture of a fat boy and bat was associated with a picture of a bat.
Then, with the pictures withdrawn, the children demonstrated
that they could read the words alone. One might think that the
children had inferred that the f made the sound /f/, because the f
was the only letter that distinguished fat from bat and the phoneme /f/ was the only sound that distinguished the spoken word
fat from bat. But instead, the children were unable to demonstrate that they had learned this association. When they were
asked to judge whether the printed word fun said fun or bun,
their responses were incorrect about as often as they were correct. Thus, in at least some conditions, children do not spontaneously infer letter-sound correspondences on the basis of being

able to read whole words. This finding reinforces the importance
of teaching children directly what they need to learn.
Classroom Studies
Classroom studies of teaching reading typically have compared phonics instruction with some form of nonphonics
(whole-word or whole-language) instruction. As noted, there
have been many reviews of such research (M.J. Adams, 1990;
Chall, 1967) in addition to the NRC (Snow et al., 1998) and
NRP (2000) reports. All of these reviews (see also Chall, 1983,
1996; Feitelson, 1988) concluded that systematic phonics instruction produces somewhat higher reading achievement for
beginning readers compared with the nonphonics alternative.
Results are most impressive for students at risk for reading failure, such as children in Title I programs and those with learning difficulties.
If reviews are unanimous in their support for phonics, why
does the debate continue? It continues because the debate is not
just about whether the unit of instruction should be graphemephoneme mappings or whole words; rather, the debate is enmeshed in philosophical differences between traditional versus
progressive education that divided American educators throughout the 20th century and continue to this day. The progressives,
drawing upon the writings of Dewey (1938), champion student-centered learning over traditional educations emphasis on
the uniformity of method and curriculum. The whole-language
movements emphasis on teacher empowerment, child-centered learning, and authentic literature is an outgrowth of progressive education. Likewise, its emphasis on constructivist
psychology and on ethnographic and case study methodologies
challenges the credibility of the empirical data-based approaches that dominate every field of scientific research (Foorman, 1995). Hence, conclusions based on classroom studies
are contested on the basis of broad philosophical stances that
are inconsistent with standard assumptions about research.
It is important to note that most of the whole-language
movements educational values are not necessarily inconsistent
with teaching phonics. Indeed, schools of education could include a course in the alphabetic principle and phonics instruction for teachers in training. Then these teachers could enter
first-grade classrooms empowered with the knowledge necessary to teach phonics without following scripted programs or
relying on worksheets (Moats, 1994). In fact, few schools of
education offer such a course.
First-grade studies
The U.S. Office of Education conducted the Cooperative
Research Program in First Grade Reading Instruction between
1964 and 1967. These studies are commonly referred to as the
first-grade studies. Bond and Dykstra (1967) concluded from
these studies that classroom approaches that emphasized (a)
systematic phonics, (b) reading for meaning in vocabularycontrolled text, and (c) writing produced superior achievement
compared with approaches that relied on mainstream basal

readers that did not include phonics (only recently have systematic phonics instruction and decodable text been incorporated into mainstream basal reading series). They found a
definite advantage for code-emphasis approaches but concluded that no single method worked for all teachers or all children. Phonics proponents emphasize the first part of the
conclusion; whole-language proponents emphasize the latter
part of the conclusion. Only recently have the multilevel modeling and statistical techniques become available to test for the
separate and interactive effects of characteristics of students,
teachers, and programs.
Evans and Carr (1985) evaluated two programs in 20 firstgrade classrooms. Half of these were traditional teacher-directed
classrooms in which instruction involved basal readers with
phonics drills and applications. The other half were studentcentered classrooms in which instruction by the teacher constituted only 35% of the days activity. In the latter classrooms,
reading was taught primarily by an individualized language-experience method in which students produced their own workbooks of stories and banks of words to be recognized (a wholelanguage approach). Evans and Carr characterized these two
groups as decoding oriented and language oriented. Despite
some differences in emphasis regarding how teaching should
be conducted, the two groups did not differ in the amount of
time spent on reading tasks. The two groups were also matched
on relevant socioeconomic variables, and they were virtually
identical on measures of intelligence and language maturity.
The clear result, however, was that the decoding group scored
higher on year-end reading achievement tests, including comprehension tests. Additionally, the language-oriented group did
not show higher achievement in oral language measures based
on a storytelling task. The results were consistent with the
Pittsburgh Longitudinal study (Lesgold & Curtis, 1981; Lesgold
& Resnick, 1982), which also showed quite clearly that instruction that emphasizes the alphabetic principle does not produce
word callers who are insensitive to contextual meaning.
Effective-schools research
In the late 1970s and the 1980s, several syntheses of research on effective teaching were written (Brophy & Good,
1984; Rosenshine & Stevens, 1986). Effectiveness was defined
in terms of correlations between classroom processes and student outcomes. The strongest correlates of achievement were
instructional time engaged in academic tasks, classroom management, and certain patterns of teacher-student interactions
(Soar, 1973; Stallings, Robbins, Presbrey, & Scott, 1986). For
disadvantaged students, the link between explicit instruction
and achievement was notable (Stallings et al., 1986), a finding
supported in other classroom-observation research (Brophy &
Evertson, 1978; Good & Grouws, 1975). Current reading research builds upon this research by employing longitudinal,
multilevel designs that nest time within student, student within
classroom, and classroom within school. By so doing, re65

searchers are able to examine the impact of teachers and
schools on the growth and outcomes of individual students
over time. Thus, although the effective-schools research provides correlations between students time-on-task and achievement outcomes, new methodologies in the 1990s made it
possible to model how teachers effectiveness mediates the impact of students initial skill levels on skill development and
achievement. And by modeling these effects within schools, researchers can begin to understand why students in some
schools perform so much better than students in other schools.
Best practices
During the heyday of the whole-language movement (the
mid-1980s to the end of the 1990s), educational researchers
turned away from large-scale studies of classroom instruction
and instead engaged in case studies of exemplary teachers and
culturally different students. Case studies of culturally responsive instruction emphasized the small-group, collaborative approaches (Au, 1980; Philips, 1972) and the importance of
relating classroom instruction to the home and community experiences of children (Delpit, 1995; Goldenberg & Gallimore,
1991; Heath, 1983).
In response to the assumption that best practices occurred in
literature-based classrooms and not in skills-based classrooms,
some recent research contrasted these two approaches (Morrow
& Gambrell, 2000). The literature-based perspective is grounded
in reader response theory (Rosenblatt, 1978), according to which
readers play a central role in the construction of meaning, and
in social-constructivist theory (Cullinan, 1987), according to
which literacy is acquired in a book-rich context of purposeful
communication. Literature-based instruction emphasizes sustained use of authentic literature for independent reading, readalouds, and collaborative discussions. Skills-based programs,
in contrast, are typically defined as traditional programs that
use a commercially available basal reading program and follow
a sequence of skills ordered according to their difficulty. Systematic phonics instruction falls under this definition of skillsbased programs, whereas literature-based instruction is a more
recent term for the whole-language approach. Literature-based
instruction was found to benefit literacy acquisition in kindergarten (Castle, Riach, & Nicholson, 1994; Reutzel, Oda, &
Moore, 1989) and at the elementary level (Freppon, 1991; Purcell-Gates, McIntyre, & Freppon, 1995; Reutzel & Cooter, 1990).
In sum, studies of best practices provided ethnographic and
case studies of a small number of exemplary teachers, in contrast to the effective-schools research, which examined process-product correlations in a large number of classrooms in
schools of varying SES and achievement levels.
Recently, the combination of literature-based instruction
with traditional basal reading instruction has been found to be
more powerful than traditional instruction alone (Dahl, Scharer,
Lawson, & Grogan, 1999; Morrow, 1992; Morrow, Pressley,
Smith, & Smith, 1997). In fact, balanced reading instruction
seems to be replacing literature-based reading instruction
66
(Fitzgerald & Noblit, 2000; Pressley, 1998), as the pendulum

of reading rhetoric swings away from whole-language approaches toward phonics.
Evidence-based practices
Rather than simply describing teaching strategies of teachers nominated by peers for their best practices (or correlating
processes and products as in the effective-schools research),
current research is drawing on longitudinal and multilevel designs to examine the impact of student-level and teacher-level
variables on skill development and achievement.
While whole-language proponents were advocating the virtues of literature-based instruction and condemning phonics
and skills-based instruction in the 1980s and 1990s, researchers continued to examine how childrens reading development
was affected by the interaction of their characteristics with instructional factors. These researchers (M.J. Adams, 1990; Ehri,
1998; Foorman, 1994; Harm & Seidenberg, 1999; Perfetti,
1992) addressed the complex mappings of phonology to orthography that are required when learning to read English; they
also appreciated that phonics is an ad hoc system of 90 or so
rules for teaching reading that provides only a beginning focus
on grapheme-phoneme relations when, in fact, there are as
many as 500 spelling-sound connections that must be learned
(Gough et al., 1992). Because of the sheer number of these
connections, self-teaching is hypothesized as the mechanism
by which children continue their reading development beyond
basic levels (Share, 1995; Share & Stanovich, 1995). Selfteaching assumes a foundation of phonological awareness and
decoding skill upon which to bootstrap new orthographic information. Several researchers have investigated how this knowledge interacts with instruction in classroom settings. Juel and
Roper/Schneider (1985) found that if the dominant instructional strategy in the classroom was decoding unknown words
letter by letter, children learned the strategy quicker and went
on to infer untaught letter-sound relations faster if their beginning reading textbooks contained decodable text. This was particularly true of children with low initial levels of skill.
Foorman, Francis, Novy, and Liberman (1991) found that
students in three first-grade classrooms with more letter-sound
instruction improved at a faster rate in reading and spelling
than students in three first-grade classrooms with less lettersound instruction. Initial scores on phonemic segmentation
tasks predicted reading and spelling outcomes for all children.
Exploratory data analysis revealed that children who were slow
to improve in phonemic segmentation were also slow to spell
and read phonetically, especially among children receiving less
letter-sound instruction (Foorman & Francis, 1994).
In a subsequent study, Foorman et al. (1998) examined the
reading development of 285 first and second graders in 66
classrooms in eight Title I schools to determine how the nature
of letter-sound instruction interacted with entering skill in phonological awareness. These students scored in the bottom 18%
on the districts early literacy assessment. Some teachers parVOL. 2, NO. 2, NOVEMBER 2001

ticipated in one of three kinds of experimental classroom reading programs, and some participated in an unseen control
group involving the districts standard curriculum. Instruction
in all four groups included a language arts emphasis on writing
and read-alouds from good-quality literature. The three types
of experimental programs were differentiated by the kind of
phonics instruction: (a) direct instruction in letter-sound correspondences practiced in decodable text (direct code), (b) less
direct instruction in systematic sound-spelling patterns embedded in authentic literature (embedded code), and (c) implicit
instruction in the alphabetic code while reading authentic text
(implicit code). The 53 teachers for these three groups participated in ongoing generic staff development as well as training
specific to their program. The remaining 13 teachers participated in the districts whole-language staff development, and
their students formed a control group for the implicit-code approach.
Children receiving direct-code instruction improved in word
reading at a faster rate and had higher word recognition skills
than those receiving implicit-code instruction. The improvement was particularly impressive for students who began the
year with low phonological awareness. Children receiving direct-code instruction, in contrast to children in the other
groups, also had word-reading and reading comprehension
skills that approximated national averages at the end of the
year. Despite the direct-code groups generally good outcomes,
35% of them remained below the 30th percentile in reading
achievement. Torgesen (2000) multiplied the percentage of students remaining below the 30th percentile (35% in this case)
by the percentage of the distribution of reading scores represented by the students at the beginning of the year (18% in this
case) to derive a population-based failure rate. Accordingly,
Torgesen computed the population-based failure rate for the
Foorman et al. (1998) study as 6% (35% 18%). Fletcher and
Lyon (1998) pointed out that a failure rate of 6% represents a
substantial reduction in the 15% to 20% of students with reading difficulty in the United States. The finding that explicit instruction in letter-sounds can prevent reading difficulties for
children at risk for reading failure because of poor phonological awareness or lack of home literacy has been demonstrated a
number of times (Anderson, Hiebert, Scott, & Wilkinson,
1985; Foorman et al., 1998; Juel, 2000; Torgesen et al., 1999;
Vellutino et al., 1996; Williams, 1980).
The other side of this apparent ability-by-treatment interaction is that first graders who enter with middle-range literacy
skills benefit from classrooms with ample opportunities to read
trade books (Juel, 2000). In an investigation of 4,872 kindergarten children in 114 classrooms where reading curricula (informed by ongoing professional development) varied in the
degree of teacher choice and in the degree to which phonological awareness was incorporated, less teacher choice and more
explicit incorporation of phonological awareness was associated with less variability across teachers in letter knowledge
and phonological awareness at the end of kindergarten and in
reading achievement at the end of first grade (Foorman et al.,

2001). More teacher choice and a moderate number of phonological-awareness activities (mostly in the form of letter-sound
instruction) were associated with more outliershigh-scoring
childrenat the end of kindergarten and first grade.
The effects of instruction can persist beyond the first grade,
and they can be manifest in spelling as well as reading. Bruck,
Treiman, Caravolos, Genesee, and Cassar (1998) compared
spelling in third-grade children who had whole-language instruction throughout school and third graders who instead had
received phonics instruction. The phonics-instructed children
were better spellers, and their spelling of pseudowords included more conventional, phonologically accurate patterns.
In general, it appears that the clarity and organization of research-based components in the curriculum make a difference
to reading outcomes. However, out-of-the-box implementations
of basal reading programs are not likely to be effective. Again,
ongoing professional development that provides the rationale
for each component of reading (and spelling) instruction and
provides classroom coaching to deal with the pacing of instruction, classroom management, and grouping of students is what
helps teachers develop successful readers. Expecting teachers
to put aside their basal readers and create their own curricula is
not realistic given the lack of resources and of the knowledge
base to do so (Moats, 1994).
Summary
Since the 1960s, classroom studies of reading methods have
consistently shown better results for early phonics instruction
compared with instruction emphasizing meaning at the level of
words and sentences. This effect is particularly strong for children at risk for reading failure because of lack of home literacy
or weak phonological-awareness skills (children who have attention problems, chronic ear infections, articulation problems,
or a history of dyslexia in their families). This interaction between childrens characteristics and curricular focus is moderated by instructional factors such as teachers knowledge and
competency. Thus, the kinds of materials (curriculum) and instructional strategies used interact with a childs stage of reading development in determining the childs success in learning
to read. This fact has important policy implications for improving literacy levels nationwide. Yet in the national arena, reading
methods have become highly politicized, and the Great Debate
has turned into the reading wars. Proponents of literature-based
instruction (Coles, 2000; B.M. Taylor, Anderson, Au, & Raphael,
2000; D. Taylor, 1998) have attacked research supporting
skills-based instruction, despite the fact that this research investigates processes fundamental to learning to read rather than
skills-based instruction per se. In return, skills-based researchers have pointed out how these attacks have misrepresented the
research and are based primarily on philosophical objections
(Foorman, Fletcher, Francis, & Schatschneider, 2000; Mathes
& Torgesen, 2000). Despite the controversy, there is no question that continued scientific study of what constitutes effective
67

reading instruction will benefit children and teachers by improving understanding of how particular children best learn to read.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In this monograph, we discussed a wide range of topics relevant to how children learn to read. We discussed evidence
from developmental psychology concerning both the characteristics of childrens language competency when they enter
school and the nature of early reading development. We also
discussed research on skilled reading (from cognitive psychology, cognitive neuroscience, and connectionist modeling) and
the implications of this work for learning to read and teaching
methods. Included in our discussion were arguments based on
linguistic analyses, data from studies of skilled reading and
brain activity during reading, and implications that follow from
the implementation of connectionist models. Finally, we presented evidence from laboratory and classroom studies regarding the most effective methods for teaching reading.
From all these different perspectives, two inescapable conclusions emerge. The first is that mastering the alphabetic principle is essential to becoming proficient in the skill of reading,
and the second is that instructional techniques (namely, phonics) that teach this principle directly are more effective than
those that do not. This seems to be especially the case for children who are at risk in some way for having difficulty learning
to read. It is also the case that the absence of instruction in
phonics may increase the number of children at risk for becoming poor spellers (particularly because whole-language instruction often tolerates incorrect spellings). We do not deny the
value inherent in various principles of whole-language teaching methods. As we noted many times throughout this monograph, instructional techniques that move beyond phonics
practice to ensure the application of alphabetic principles to
reading clearly support the process of learning to read. We also
emphasized that the childs learning is every bit as important as
the teachers instruction. Obviously, using whole-language activities to supplement phonics instruction helps make reading
fun and meaningful for children. Such activities may be most
beneficial to children from environments where reading is not
highly valued. But, at the end of the day, phonics instruction is
critically important because it does help the beginning reader
understand the alphabetic principle and apply it to reading and
writing. Thus, the empirical data clearly indicate that elementary teachers who make the alphabetic principle explicit are
most effective in helping their students become skilled, independent readers.
AcknowledgmentsWe thank the reviewers (David Balota, Keith Stanovich, Richard Wagner, and two anonymous reviewers) for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this report. We are particularly grateful to
Roddy Roediger, Michele Nathan, and Jane Ashby for their extraordinary
feedback and very helpful suggestions for revision. We also thank Marisol
Acosta for drawing the cover illustration.
68
REFERENCES
Adams, B.C., Bell, L.C., & Perfetti, C.A. (1995). A trading relationship between reading skill and domain knowledge in childrens text comprehension. Discourse Processes, 20, 307323.
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print.
Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Alba, J.W., & Hasher, L. (1983). Is memory schematic? Psychological Bulletin, 93, 203231.
Anderson, R.C., Hiebert, E.H., Scott, J.A., & Wilkinson, I.A. (1985). Becoming a nation of readers. Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
Anderson, R.C., Reynolds, R.E., Schallert, D., & Goetz, E.T. (1977). Frameworks for comprehending discourse. American Educational Research
Journal, 14, 367381.
Au, K.H. (1980). Participation structures in a reading lesson with Hawaiian
children: Analysis of a culturally appropriate instructional event. Anthropology and Education Quarterly, 11, 91115.
Baddeley, A.D. (1979). Working memory and reading. In P.A. Kolers, M.E.
Wrolstad, & H. Bouma (Eds.), Processing of visible language (pp. 355
370). New York: Plenum.
Baker, L. (1984). Spontaneous versus instructed use of multiple standards for
evaluating comprehension: Effects of age, reading proficiency, and type
of standard. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 289311.
Ball, E.W., & Blachman, B.A. (1988). Phoneme segmentation training: Effect
on reading readiness. Annals of Dyslexia, 38, 208225.
Bates, E., Bretherton, I., & Snyder, L. (with Beeghley, M., et al.). (1988). From
first words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (1991). Conditions of vocabulary acquisition. In R.
Barr, M.L. Kamil, P. Mosenthal, & P.D. Pearson (Eds.), Handbook of
reading research (Vol. 2, pp. 789814). New York: Longman.
Bell, L.C., & Perfetti, C.A. (1994). Reading skill: Some adult comparisons.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 244255.
Bentin, S., Mouchetant-Rostaing, Y., Giard, M.H., Echallier, J.F., & Pernier, J.
(1999). ERP manifestations of processing printed words at different psycholinguistic levels: Time course and scalp distribution. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 11, 235260.
Berent, I., & Perfetti, C.A. (1995). A rose is a reez: The two cycles model of
phonology assembly in reading English. Psychological Review, 102,
146184.
Bishop, C.H. (1964). Transfer effects of word and letter training in reading.
Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 3, 215221.
Bishop, D. (1997). Uncommon understanding: Development and disorders of
language comprehension in children. London: Psychology Press.
Blachman, B.A. (1989). Phonological awareness and word recognition: Assessment and intervention. In A.G. Kamhi & H.W. Catts (Eds.), Reading
disabilities: A developmental language perspective (pp. 133158). Boston: Little, Brown.
Bloom, P.A. (1994). Recent controversies in the study of language acquisition.
In M.A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 741
780). San Diego: Academic Press.
Bloom, P.A., Barss, A., Nicol, J., & Conway, L. (1994). Childrens knowledge
of binding and coreference: Evidence from spontaneous speech. Language, 70, 5371.
Blumenthal, A.L. (1970). Language and psychology: Historical aspects of psycholinguistics. New York: John Wiley.
Bond, G.L., & Dykstra, R. (1967). The cooperative research program in firstgrade-reading instruction. Reading Research Quarterly, 2, 1142.
Bosman, A., & Van Orden, G. (1997). Why spelling is more difficult than reading. In C.A. Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across languages (pp. 173194). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P.E. (1978). Differences in auditory organization as a
possible cause of reading backwardness. Nature, 271, 746747.
Bradley, L., & Bryant, P.E. (1983). Categorizing sounds and learning to read
A causal connection. Nature, 301, 419421.
Briggs, C., & Elkind, D. (1973). Cognitive development in early readers. Developmental Psychology, 9, 279280.
Brooks, L. (1977). Visual pattern in fluent word identification. In A.S. Reber &
D.L. Scarborough (Eds.), Toward a psychology of reading (pp. 143181).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Brophy, J.E., & Evertson, C.M. (1978).Context variables in teaching. Educational Psychologist, 12, 310316.
Brophy, J.E., & Good, T.L. (1984). Teacher behavior and student achievement
(Occasional Paper No. 73). East Lansing: Michigan State University, Institute for Research on Teaching.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Bruck, M., Treiman, R., Caravolos, M., Genesee, F., & Cassar, M. (1998).
Spelling skills of children in whole language and phonics classrooms.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 669684.
Bryant, P.E., & Bradley, L. (1980). Why children sometimes write words
which they do not read. In U. Frith (Ed.), Cognitive processes in spelling
(pp. 355370). London: Academic Press.
Byrne, B. (1984). On teaching articulatory phonetics via an orthography. Memory & Cognition, 12, 181189.
Byrne, B. (1991). Experimental analysis of the childs discovery of the alphabetic principle. In L. Rieben & C.A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read:
Basic research and its implications (pp. 7584). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Byrne, B. (1996). The learnability of the alphabetical principle: Childrens initial hypotheses about how print represents spoken language. Applied Psycholinguistics, 17, 401426.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1991). Evaluation of a program to teach
phonemic awareness to young children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 451455.
Carpenter, P.A., Miyake, A., & Just, M.A. (1994). Working memory constraints in comprehension: Evidence from individual differences, aphasia, and aging. In M.A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics (pp. 10751122). San Diego: Academic Press.
Castle, J.M., Riach, J., & Nicholson, T. (1994). Getting off to a better start in
reading and spelling: The effects of phonemic awareness instruction
within a whole language program. Journal of Educational Psychology,
87, 488503.
Castles, A., & Coltheart, M. (1993). Varieties of developmental dyslexia. Cognition, 47, 149180.
Castro-Caldas, A., Miranda, P.C., Carmo, I., Reis, A., Leote, F., Ribeiro, C., &
Ducla-Soares, E. (1999). Influence of learning to read and write on the
morphology of the corpus callosum. European Journal of Neurology, 6,
2328.
Cattell, J.M. (1886). The time it takes to see and name objects. Mind, 11, 6365.
Chall, J.S. (1967). Learning to read: The great debate. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Chall, J.S. (1983). Learning to read: The great debate (2nd ed.). New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Chall, J.S. (1996). Learning to read: The great debate (3rd ed.). Fort Worth,
TX: Harcourt Brace.
Chee, M., Tan, E., & Thiel, T. (1999). Mandarin and English single word processing studies with functional magnetic resonance imaging. Journal of
Neuroscience, 19, 30503056.
Chomsky, C. (1970). Reading, writing and phonology. Harvard Educational
Review, 40, 287309.
Chomsky, N., & Halle, M. (1968). The sound pattern of English. New York:
Harper and Row.
Clay, M. (1991). Becoming literate. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Clay, M. (1993). Reading recovery: A guidebook for teachers in training.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Coles, G. (2000). Misreading reading: The bad science that hurts children.
Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Coltheart, M. (1978). Lexical access in simple reading tasks. In G. Underwood
(Ed.), Strategies of information processing (pp. 151216). London: Academic Press.
Coltheart, M., Curtis, B., Atkins, P., & Haller, M. (1993). Models of reading
aloud: Dual-route and parallel-distributed-processing accounts. Psychological Review, 100, 589608.
Coltheart, M., Rastle, K., Perry, C., Langdon, R., & Ziegler, J. (2001). DRC: A
dual route cascaded model of visual word recognition and reading aloud.
Psychological Review, 108, 204256.
Coslett, H.B. (2000). Acquired dyslexia. In M.J. Farah & T.E. Feinberg (Eds.),
Patient-based approaches to cognitive neuroscience: Issues in clinical
and cognitive neuropsychology (pp. 235246). Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Crain, S., & Shankweiler, D. (1988). Syntactic complexity and reading acquisition. In A. Davison & G.M. Green (Eds.), Linguistic complexity and text
comprehension: Readability issues reconsidered (pp. 167192). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Critchley, M. (1970). The dyslexic child. London: Heinemann Medical Books.
Crosson, B., Rao, S.M., Woodley, S.J., Rosen, A.C., Bobholz, J.A., Mayer, A.,
Cunningham, J.M., Hammeke, T.A., Fuller, S.A., Binder, J.R., Cox,
R.W., & Stein, E.A. (1999). Mapping of semantic, phonological, and orthographic verbal working memory in normal adults with functional
magnetic resonance imaging. Neuropsychology, 13, 171187.
Crowder, R.G. (1982). The psychology of reading. New York: Oxford University Press.
Crowder, R.G., & Wagner, R.K. (1992). The psychology of reading. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Cullinan, B.E. (1987). Childrens literature in the reading program. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Cunningham, A.E., & Stanovich, K.E. (1991). Tracking the unique effects of
print exposure in children: Associations with vocabulary, general knowledge and spelling. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 264274.
Cunningham, A.E., & Stanovich, K.E. (1997). Early reading acquisition and its
relation to reading experience and ability. Developmental Psychology, 33,
934945.
Cunningham, A.E., Stanovich, K.E., & Wilson, M.R. (1990). Cognitive variation in adult students differing in reading ability. In T.H. Carr & B.A.
Levy (Eds.), Reading and its development: Component skills approaches
(pp. 129159). New York: Academic Press.
Cunningham, P.M. (1995). Phonics they use: Words for reading and writing.
New York: Harper Collins.
Cunningham, P.M. (1999). What should we do about phonics? In L.B. Gambrell, L.M. Morrow, S.B. Neuman, & M. Pressley (Eds.), Best practices
in literacy instruction (pp. 6889). New York: Guilford Press.
Curtis, M.E. (1980). Development of components of reading skill. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 72, 656669.
Dahl, K.L., Scharer, P.L., Lawson, L.L., & Grogan, P.R. (1999). Phonics instruction and student achievement in whole language first-grade classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 312341.
de Weirdt, W. (1990). Age differences in place-of-articulation phoneme boundary. Perception & Psychophysics, 42, 101103.
DeFrancis, J. (1989). Visible speech: The diverse oneness of writing systems.
Honolulu: University of Hawaii.
Delpit, L. (1995). Other peoples children. New York: New Press.
Demonet, J.F., Fiez, J.A., Paulesu, E., Petersen, S.E., & Zatorre, R. (1996).
PET studies of phonological processing: A critical reply to Poeppel.
Brain and Language, 55, 352379.
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan.
Dressman, M. (1999). On the use and misuse of research evidence: Decoding
two states reading initiatives. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 258285.
Durkin, D. (1966). Children who read early. New York: Teachers College, Columbia University.
Eden, G.F., VanMeter, J.W., Rumsey, J.M., Maisog, J.M., Woods, R.P., & Zeffiro, T.A. (1996). Abnormal processing of visual motion in dyslexia revealed by functional brain imaging. Nature, 382, 6669.
Ehri, L.C. (1979). Linguistic insight: Threshold of reading acquisition. In T.G.
Waller & G.E. MacKinnon (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory
and practice (Vol. 1, pp. 63114). New York: Academic Press.
Ehri, L.C. (1980). The role of orthography in printed word learning. In J.G.
Kavanagh & R.L. Venezky (Eds.), Orthography, reading, and dyslexia
(pp. 155170). Baltimore: University Park Press.
Ehri, L.C. (1991). Learning to read and spell words. In L. Rieben & C.A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read: Basic research and its implications (pp.
5773). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ehri, L.C. (1998). Grapheme-phoneme knowledge is essential for learning to
read words in English. In J.L. Metsala & L.C. Ehri (Eds.), Word recognition in beginning reading (pp. 340). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ehri, L.C., & Sweet, J. (1991). Fingerpoint-reading of memorized text: What
enables beginners to process the print? Reading Research Quarterly, 24,
442462.
Ehri, L.C., & Wilce, L.S. (1983). Development of word identification speed in
skilled and less skilled beginning readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 318.
Ehri, L.C., & Wilce, L.S. (1985). Movement into reading: Is the first stage of
printed word learning visual or phonetic? Reading Research Quarterly,
20, 163179.
69

Englemann, S., & Bruner, E. (1995). Reading mastery. Chicago: SRA/
McGraw Hill.
Evans, M.A., & Carr, T.H. (1985). Cognitive abilities, conditions of learning,
and the early development of reading skill. Reading Research Quarterly,
20, 327350.
Feitelson, D. (1988). Facts and fads in beginning reading. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Ferreiro, E. (1986). The interplay between information and assimilation in beginning literacy. In W.H. Teale & E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy:
Writing and reading (pp. 1549). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Fiez, J. (in press). Reading, neural basis of. In N.J. Smelser & B. Baltes (Eds.),
International encyclopedia of the social and behavioral sciences. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
Fiez, J.A. (1997). Phonology, semantics and the role of of the left inferior prefrontal cortex. Human Brain Mapping, 5, 7983.
Fiez, J.A., Balota, D.A., Raichle, M.E., & Petersen, S.E. (1999). Effects of lexicality, frequency, and spelling-to-sound consistency on the functional
anatomy of reading. Neuron, 24, 205218.
Fiez, J.A., & Petersen, S.E. (1998). Neuroimaging studies of word reading.
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 95, 914921.
Fitzgerald, J., & Noblit, G. (2000). Balance in the making: Learning to read in
an ethnically diverse first-grade classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 322.
Fletcher, J.M., Foorman, B.R., Shaywitz, S.E., & Shaywitz, B.A. (1999). Conceptual and methodological issues in dyslexia research: A lesson for developmental disorders. In H. Tager-Flusberg (Ed.), Neurodevelopmental
disorders (pp. 271306). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Fletcher, J.M., & Lyon, G.R. (1998). Reading: A research-based approach. In
W.M. Evers (Ed.), Whats gone wrong in Americas classrooms (pp. 49
90). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
Foorman, B.R. (1994). The relevance of a connectionist model of reading for
The Great Debate. Educational Psychology Review, 6, 2547.
Foorman, B.R. (1995). Research on The Great Debate: Code-oriented versus
whole-language approaches to reading instruction. School Psychology
Review, 24, 376392.
Foorman, B.R., Fletcher, J.M., Francis, D.J., & Schatschneider, C. (2000). Response: Misrepresentation of research by other researchers. Educational
Researcher, 29, 2737.
Foorman, B.R., & Francis, D.J. (1994). Exploring connections among reading,
spelling, and phonemic segmentation during first grade. Reading and
Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 6, 126.
Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Carlson, C., Chen, D.T., Moats, L., & Fletcher, J.
(2001, April). The necessity of the alphabetic principle to phonemic
awareness instruction. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis, MN.
Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Fletcher, J.M., Schatschneider, C., & Mehta, P.
(1998). The role of instruction in learning to read: Preventing reading
failure in at-risk children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 3755.
Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Novy, D., & Liberman, D. (1991). How lettersound instruction mediates progress in first-grade reading and spelling.
Foorman, B.R., Francis, D.J., Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., & Fletcher, J.M.
(1997). The case for early reading interventions. In B. Blachman (Ed.),
Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early
intervention (pp. 243264). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fountas, I.C., & Pinnell, G.S. (1996). Guided reading. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fountas, I.C., & Pinnell, G.S. (1998). Words matter. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Fox, B., & Routh, D.K. (1976). Phonetic analysis and synthesis as word attack
skills. Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 7074.
Freppon, P.A. (1991). Childrens concepts of the nature and purpose of reading in different instructional settings. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23,
139163.
Frith, U. (1985). Beneath the surface of developmental dyslexia. In K.E.
Patterson, J.C. Marshall, & M. Coltheart (Eds.), Surface dyslexia: Neuropsychological and cognitive studies of phonological reading (pp. 301
330). London: Erlbaum.
Frost, R. (1998). Toward a strong phonological theory of visual word recognition: True issues and false trails. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 7199.
Frost, R., Katz, L., & Bentin, S. (1987). Strategies for visual word recognition and orthographical depth: A multilingual comparison. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 13,
159180.
70
Garner, R. (1980). Monitoring of understanding: An investigation of good and

poor readers awareness of induced miscomprehension of text. Journal of
Reading Behavior, 12, 5563.
Gathercole, S.E., & Baddeley, A.D. (1989). Evaluation of the role of phonological STM in the development of vocabulary in children: A longitudinal
study. Journal of Memory and Language, 28, 200213.
Gelb, I.J. (1952). A study of writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Georgiewa, P., Rzanny, R., Hopf, J.M., Knab, R., Glauche, V., Kaiser, W.A., &
Blanz, B. (1999). FMRI during word processing in dyslexic and normal
reading children. NeuroReport, 10, 34593465.
Gerken, L. (1994). Child phonology: Past research, present questions, future
directions. In M.A. Gernsbacher (Ed.), Handbook of psycholinguistics
(pp. 781820). San Diego: Academic Press.
Gernsbacher, M.A. (1990). Language comprehension as structure building.
Gernsbacher, M.A., Varner, K.R., & Faust, M.E. (1990). Investigating differences in general comprehension skill. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 16, 430445.
Gleitman, L.R., & Rozin, P. (1977). The structure and acquisition of reading I:
Relations between orthographies and the structure of language. In A.S.
Reber & D.L. Scarborough (Eds.), Toward a psychology of reading (pp.
Goldenberg, C., & Gallimore, R. (1991). Local knowledge, research knowledge, and educational change: A case study of early Spanish reading improvement. Educational Researcher, 20, 214.
Good, T.L., & Grouws, D.A. (1975). Teacher rapport: Some stability data.
Goodman, K. (1970). Reading: A psycholinguistic guessing game. In H.
Singer & R.B. Ruddell (Eds.), Theoretical models and processes of reading (pp. 259272). Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Goodman, K.S. (1986). Whats whole in whole language? Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Goswami, U. (1993). Toward an interactive analogy model of reading development: Decoding vowel graphemes in beginning reading. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 56, 443475.
Gough, P.B. (1993). The beginning of decoding. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 5, 181192.
Gough, P.B., & Hillinger, M.L. (1980). Learning to read: An unnatural act.
Bulletin of the Orton Society, 20, 179196.
Gough, P.B., & Juel, C. (1991). The first stages of word recognition. In L. Rieben & C.A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read: Basic research and its implications (pp. 4756). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gough, P.B., Juel, C., & Griffith, P.L. (1992). Reading, spelling, and the orthographic cipher. In P.B. Gough, L.C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading
acquisition (pp. 3548). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gough, P.B., & Walsh, M.A. (1991). Chinese, Phoenicians, and the orthographic cipher of English. In S.A. Brady & D.P. Shankweiler (Eds.), Phonological processes in literacy: A tribute to Isabelle Y. Liberman (pp.
Graesser, A.C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. (1994). Constructing inferences during narrative comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371395.
Grainger, J., & Jacobs, A.M. (1994). Orthographic processing in visual word
recognition. Psychological Review, 103, 518565.
Graves, M.F., & Slater, W.H. (1987, April) Development of reading vocabularies in rural disadvantaged students, intercity disadvantaged students, and
middle class suburban students. Paper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association, New York.
Harm, M.W., & Seidenberg, M.S. (1999). Phonology, reading acquisition, and
dyslexia: Insights from connectionist models. Psychological Review, 106,
491528.
Harm, M.W., & Seidenberg, M.S. (2001). Division of labor in a multicomponent connectionist model of reading: I. Computing the meanings of words.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Hayduk, S., Bruck, M., & Cavanagh, P. (1996). Low-level visual processing
skills of adults and children with dyslexia. Cognitive Neuropsychology,
13, 9751015.
Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities
and classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Hinton, G. (1989). Connectionist learning procedures. Artificial Intelligence,
40, 185234.
Hinton, G.E., McClelland, J.L., & Rumelhart, D.E. (1986). Distributed representations. In D.E. Rumelhart & J.L. McClelland (Eds.), Parallel distribVOL. 2, NO. 2, NOVEMBER 2001

uted processing: Explorations in the microstructure of cognition (Vol. 1,
pp. 77109). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hogaboam, T.W., & Perfetti, C.A. (1978). Reading skill and the role of verbal
experience in decoding. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70, 717729.
Huey, E.B. (1908). The psychology and pedagogy of reading. New York: Macmillan.
Hung, D.L., & Tzeng, O.J.L. (1981). Orthographic variations and visual information processing. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 377414.
Huttenlocher, J., & Smiley, P. (1987). Early word meanings: The case of object
names. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 6389.
Jeffrey, W.E., & Samuels, S.J. (1967). The effect of method of reading training
on initial reading and transfer. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 354358.
Joanisse, M., Manis, F., Keating, P., & Seidenberg, M.S. (2000). Language deficits in dyslexia: Speech perception, phonology, and morphology. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 3060.
Jorm, A.F., & Share, D.L. (1983). Phonological recoding and reading acquisition. Applied Psycholinguistics, 4, 311342.
Juel, C. (2000). Learning to read words: Linguistic units and instructional
strategies. Reading Research Quarterly, 35, 458492.
Juel, C., Griffith, P.L., & Gough, P.B. (1986). Acquisition of literacy: A longitudinal study of children in first and second grade. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 243255.
Juel, C., & Roper/Schneider, D. (1985). The influence of basal readers on firstgrade reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 306327.
Jusczyk, P. (1992). Developing phonological categories from the speech signal. In
C.L. Ferguson, L. Meen, & C. Stoel-Gammon (Eds.), Phonological development: Models, research, implications (pp. 1764). Parkton, MD: York Press.
Jusczyk, P.W. (1985). On characterizing the development of speech perception.
In J. Mehler & R. Fox (Eds.), Neonate cognition: Beyond the blooming
buzzing confusion (pp. 199229). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A. (1987). The psychology of reading and language
comprehension. Newton, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Just, M.A., & Carpenter, P.A. (1992). A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review, 99, 122149.
Kintsch, W. (1988). The role of knowledge in discourse processing: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163182.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambridge,
England: Cambridge University Press.
Laberge, D., & Samuels, S.J. (1974). Toward a theory of automatic information
processing in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 6, 293323.
Lesgold, A.M., & Curtis, M.E. (1981). Learning to read words efficiently. In
A.M. Lesgold & C.A. Perfetti (Eds.), Interactive processes in reading
(pp. 329360). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Lesgold, A.M., & Resnick, L.B. (1982). How reading disabilities develop: Perspectives from a longitudinal study. In J.P. Das, R. Mulcahy, & A.E. Wall
(Eds.), Theory and research in learning disability (pp. 155187). New
York: Plenum.
Levin, H., & Kaplan, E.L. (1970). Grammatical structure and reading. In H.
Levin & J.P. Williams (Eds.), Basic studies on reading (pp. 119133).
New York: Basic Books.
Liberman, A. (1999). The reading researcher and the reading teacher need the
right theory of speech. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 95112.
Liberman, I.Y., Shankweiler, D., Fischer, F.W., & Carter, B. (1974). Explicit
syllable and phoneme segmentation in the young child. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 18, 201212.
Lundberg, I., Frost, J., & Petersen, O.P. (1988). Effects of an extensive program for stimulating phonological awareness in children. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 263284.
Lundberg, I., Olofsson, A., & Wall, S. (1980). Reading and spelling skills in
the first school years predicted from phonemic awareness skills in kindergarten. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 21, 159173.
Lundberg, I., & Torneus, M. (1978). Nonreaders awareness of the basic relationship between spoken and written words. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 25, 404412.
Manis, F.R. (1985). Acquisition of word identification skills in normal and disabled readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 7890.
Manis, F.R., Seidenberg, M.S., Doi, L.M., McBride-Chang, C., & Petersen, A.
(1996). On the basis of two subtypes of developmental dyslexia. Cognition, 58, 157195.
Mann, V.A. (1986). Phonological awareness: The role of reading experience.
Cognition, 24, 6592.
Mann, V.A. (1991). Phonological abilities: Effective predictors of future reading ability. In L. Rieben & C.A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to read: Basic
research and its implications (pp. 121133). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Marsh, G., Friedman, M., Welch, V., & Desberg, P. (1981). A cognitive-developmental approach to reading acquisition. In T.G. Waller & G.E.
MacKinnon (Eds.), Reading research: Advances in theory and practice
(Vol. 3, pp. 199221). New York: Academic Press.
Martin-Loeches, M., Hinojosa, J.A., Gomez-Jarabo, G., & Rubia, F.J. (1999).
The recognition potential: An ERP index of lexical access. Brain and
Language, 70, 364384.
Massachusetts Department of Education. (1995, March). English language
arts curriculum content chapter: Constructing and conveying meaning
[Draft]. Malden, MA.
Mathes, P.G., & Torgesen, J.K. (2000). A call for equity in reading instruction
for all students: A response to Allington and Woodside-Jiron. Educational Researcher, 29, 415.
McClelland, J.L., & Rumelhart, D.E. (1981). An interactive activation model
of context effects in letter perception: Part I. An account of basic findings. Psychological Review, 88, 375407.
McConkie, G.W., & Rayner, K. (1975). The span of the effective stimulus during a fixation in reading. Perception & Psychophysics, 17, 578586.
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. (1992). Inference during reading. Psychological
Review, 99, 440466.
McNeil, L.M. (2000). Creating new inequalities: Contradictions of reform. Phi
Delta Kappan, 81, 729734.
Moats, L.C. (1994). The missing foundation in teacher education: Knowledge
of the structure of spoken and written language. Annals of Dyslexia, 44,
81102.
Moats, L.C. (2000). Speech to print: Language essentials for teachers. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Mody, M., Studdert-Kennedy, M., & Brady, S. (1997). Speech perception deficits in poor readers: Auditory processing or phonological coding? Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 64, 199231.
Moore, C.J., & Price, C.J. (1999). Three distinct ventral occipitotemporal regions for reading and object naming. Neuroimage, 10, 181192.
Morais, J., Cary, L., Alegria, J., & Bertelson, P. (1979). Does awareness of
speech as a sequence of phones arise spontaneously? Cognition, 7, 323
331.
Morrow, L.M. (1992). The impact of a literature-based program on literacy
achievement, use of literature, and attitudes of children from minority
backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly, 27, 251275.
Morrow, L.M., & Gambrell, L.B. (2000). Literature-based reading instruction.
In M.L. Kamil, P.B. Mosenthal, P.D. Pearson, & R. Barr (Eds.), Handbook of reading research, Vol. III (pp. 563586). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Morrow, L.M., Pressley, M., Smith, J.K., & Smith, M. (1997). The effect of a
literature-based program integrated into literacy and science instruction
with children from diverse backgrounds. Reading Research Quarterly,
32, 5476.
Munakata, Y., McClelland, J.L., Johnson, M.H., & Siegler, R.S. (1997). Rethinking infant knowledge: Toward an adaptive process account of successes and failures in object permanence tasks. Psychological Review,
104, 686713.
Murphy, L., & Pollatsek, A. (1994). Developmental dyslexia: Heterogeneity
without discrete subgroups. Annals of Dyslexia, 44, 120146.
Myers, J.L., & OBrien, E.J. (1998). Accessing the discourse representation
during reading. Discourse Processes, 26, 131157.
Nagy, W.E., & Herman, P.A. (1987). Depth and breadth of vocabulary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. In M.G. McKeown &
M.E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition (pp. 1935).
National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk:
The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: National Institute of
Child Health and Human Development.
Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development, 38(12, Serial No. 149).
Ninio, A., & Snow, C.E. (1996). Pragmatic development. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Nittrouer, S. (1999). Do temporal processing deficits cause phonological pro-
71

cessing problems? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,
42, 925942.
Oakhill, J., & Garnham, A. (1988). Becoming a skilled reader. New York: Basil
Blackwell.
Olson, D.R. (1977). From utterance to text: The bias of language in speech and
writing. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 257281.
Olson, R.K., Wise, B.W., Ring, J., & Johnson, M. (1997). Computer-based remedial training in phoneme awareness and phonological decoding: Effects on the post-training development of word recognition. Scientific
Studies of Reading, 1, 235253.
Open Court Reading. (2000). Collections for young scholars. Chicago: SRA/
McGraw-Hill.
Orton, S.T. (1925). Word blindness in school children. Archives of Neurology
and Psychiatry, 14, 581615.
Otero, J., & Kintsch, W. (1992). Failures to detect contradictions in a text:
What readers believe versus what they read. Psychological Science, 3,
229235.
Paap, K.R., Newsome, S.L., McDonald, J.E., & Schvaneveldt, R.W. (1982). An
activation-verification model for letter and word recognition: The word
superiority effect. Psychological Review, 89, 573594.
Paap, K.R., & Noel, R. (1991). Dual route models of print to sound: Still a
good horse race. Psychological Research, 53, 1324.
Papandropoulou, I., & Sinclair, H. (1974). What is a word? Experimental study
of childrens ideas on grammar. Human Development, 27, 241258.
Patterson, K., & Lambon Ralph, M.A. (1999). Selective disorders of reading?
Current Opinions in Neurobiology, 9, 235239.
Paulesu, E., Demonet, J.F., Fazio, F., McCrory, E., Chanoine, V., Brunswick,
N., Cappa, S.F., Cossu, G., Habib, M., Frith, C.D., & Frith, U. (2001).
Dyslexia: Cultural diversity and biological unity. Science, 291, 2165
2167.
Pearson, P.D. (1999). A historically based review of Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children. Reading Research Quarterly, 34, 231246.
Peereman, R., Content, A., & Bonin, P. (1998). Is perception a two-way street:
The case of feedback consistency in visual word recognition. Journal of
Memory and Language, 39, 151174.
Perfetti, C.A. (1985). Reading ability. New York: Oxford University Press.
Perfetti, C.A. (1992). The representation problem in reading acquisition. In P.B.
Gough, L.C. Ehri, & R. Treiman (Eds.), Reading acquisition (pp. 145174).
Perfetti, C.A. (1997). The psycholinguistics of spelling and reading. In C.A.
Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across languages (pp. 2138). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perfetti, C.A., Beck, I.L., Bell, L.C., & Hughes, C. (1987). Phonemic knowledge and learning to read: A longitudinal study of first grade children.
Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 283319.
Perfetti, C.A., Goldman, S.R., & Hogaboam, T.W. (1979). Reading skill and
the identification of words in discourse context. Memory & Cognition, 7,
273282.
Perfetti, C.A., & Hart, L. (in press). The lexical basis of comprehension skill.
In D.S. Gorfien (Ed.), On the consequences of meaning selection. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Perfetti, C.A., & Lesgold, A.M. (1977). Discourse comprehension and sources
of individual differences. In P.A. Carpenter & M.A. Just (Eds.), Cognitive
processes in comprehension (pp. 141183). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Perfetti, C.A., & Marron, M.A. (1998). Learning to read: Literacy acquisition
by children and adults. In D.A. Wagner (Ed.), Advances in adult literacy
research and development (pp. 89138). Philadelphia: National Center
for Adult Literacy.
Perfetti, C.A., & Zhang, S. (1995). Very early phonological activation in Chinese reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory,
and Cognition, 21, 2433.
Philips, S. (1972). Participant structures and communicative competence:
Warm Springs children in community and classroom. In C. Cazden, V.
John, & D. Hymes (Eds.), Functions of language in the classroom (pp.
370394). New York: Teachers College Press.
Pinker, S. (1984). Language learnability and language development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Plaut, D.C., McClelland, J.L., Seidenberg, M.S., & Patterson, K.E. (1996). Understanding normal and impaired word reading: Computational principles in quasi-regular domains. Psychological Review, 103, 56115.
Pollatsek, A., Lesch, M., Morris, R.K., & Rayner, K. (1992). Phonological
codes are used in integrating information across saccades in word identi-
72
fication and reading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 148162.
Posner, M.I., Abdullaev, Y., McCandliss, B.D., & Sereno, S.C. (1999). Neuroanatomy, circuitry, and plasticity of word reading. NeuroReport, 10,
R12R23.
Posner, M.I., & DiGirolamo, G.J. (2000). Cognitive neuroscience: Origins and
promise. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 873889.
Pratt, C., Tunmer, W.E., & Bowey, J.A. (1984). Childrens capacity to correct
grammatical violations in sentences. Journal of Child Language, 11,
129141.
Pressley, M. (1998). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced
teaching. New York: Guilford Press.
Price, C.J. (1998). The functional anatomy of word comprehension and production. Trends in Cognitive Science, 2, 281288.
Pugh, K.R., Mencl, E.W., Shaywitz, B.A., Shaywitz, S.E., Fulbright, R.K.,
Skudlarski, P., Constable, R.T., Marchione, K., Jenner, A.R., Shankweiler, D.P., Katz, L., Fletcher, J., Lacadie, C., & Gore, J.C. (2000). The
angular gyrus in developmental dyslexia: Task-specific differences in
functional connectivity in posterior cortex. Psychological Science, 11,
5156.
Pugh, K.R., Shaywitz, B.A., Shaywitz, S.A., & Shankweiler, D.P. (1997). Predicting reading performance from neuroimaging profiles: The cerebral
basis of phonological effects in printed word identification. Journal of
Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23,
299318.
Purcell-Gates, V., McIntyre, E., & Freppon, P.A. (1995). Learning written storybook language in school: A comparison of low-SES children in skillsbased and whole language classrooms. American Educational Research
Journal, 32, 659685.
Rawson, M.B. (1995). Dyslexia over the life span: A 55 year longitudinal
study. Cambridge, MA: Educators Publishing Service.
Rayner, K. (1975). The perceptual span and peripheral cues in reading. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 6581.
Rayner, K. (1986). Eye movements and the perceptual span in beginning and
skilled readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 211236.
Rayner, K. (1988). Word recognition cues in children: The relative use of graphemic cues, orthographic cues, and grapheme-phoneme correspondence
rules. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 473479.
Rayner, K. (1998). Eye movements in reading and information processing: 20
years of research. Psychological Bulletin, 124, 372422.
Rayner, K., & Bertera, J.H. (1979). Reading without a fovea. Science, 206,
468469.
Rayner, K., & Pollatsek, A. (1989). The psychology of reading. Englewood
Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Rayner, K., Sereno, S.C., Lesch, M.F., & Pollatsek, A. (1995). Phonological
codes are automatically activated during reading: Evidence from an eye
movement priming paradigm. Psychological Science, 6, 2632.
Read, C. (1971). Preschool childrens knowledge of English phonology. Harvard Educational Review, 41, 134.
Read, C., Zhang, Y., Nie, H., & Ding, B. (1986). The ability to manipulate
speech sounds depends on knowing alphabetic spelling. Cognition, 24,
3144.
Reed, M.A. (1989). Speech perception and the discrimination of brief auditory
cues in reading disabled children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 270292.
Reicher, G.M. (1969). Perceptual recognition as a function of meaningfulness
of stimulus material. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 81, 275280.
Reichle, E.D., Pollatsek, A., Fisher, D.L., & Rayner, K. (1998). Toward a
model of eye movement control in reading. Psychological Review, 105,
125157.
Reitsma, P. (1983). Printed word learning in beginning readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 36, 321339.
Reutzel, D.R., & Cooter, R.B. (1990). Whole language: Comparative effects on
first-grade reading achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 83,
252257.
Reutzel, D.R., Oda, L.K., & Moore, B.H. (1989). Developing print awareness:
The effect of three instructional approaches on kindergartners print
awareness, reading readiness, and word reading. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21, 197217.
Rosenblatt, L.M. (1978). The reader, the text, the poem: The transactional theory of the literary work. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
Rosenshine, B., & Stevens, R. (1986). Teaching functions. In M. Wittrock

(Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 376391). New
York: Macmillan.
Rudell, A.P., & Hua, J. (1997). The recognition potential, word difficulty, and
individual reading ability: On using event-related potentials to study perception. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and
Performance, 23, 11701195.
Rumelhart, D.E., & McClelland, J.L. (1982). An interactive activation model
of context effects in letter perception: Part 2. The contextual enhancement effect and some tests and extensions of the model. Psychological
Review, 89, 6094.
Rumsey, J.M., Horwitz, B., Donohue, B.C., Nace, K.L., Maisog, J.M., & Andreason, P. (1999). A functional lesion in developmental dyslexia: Left angular gyral blood flow predicts severity. Brain and Language, 70, 187204.
Schneider, W., & Shiffrin, R. (1977). Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search, and attention. Psychological Review, 84, 166.
Scott, Foresman and Company. (1976). The bus ride. Glenview, IL: Pearson
Group.
Seidenberg, M.S. (1992). Beyond orthographic depth: Equitable division of labor. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography, phonology, morphology,
and meaning (pp. 85114). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
Seidenberg, M.S. (1995). Visual word recognition. In J.L. Miller & P.D. Eimas
(Eds.), Handbook of perception & cognition: Vol. 11. Speech, language
& communication (pp. 137179). San Diego: Academic Press.
Seidenberg, M.S., & McClelland, J.L. (1989). A distributed, developmental model
of word recognition and naming. Psychological Review, 96, 523568.
Sereno, S.C., Rayner, K., & Posner, M.I. (1998). Establishing a time-line of
word recognition: Evidence from eye movements and event-related potentials. NeuroReport, 9, 21952200.
Shankweiler, D., & Crain, S. (1986). Language mechanisms and reading disorder: A modular approach. Cognition, 24, 139168.
Shankweiler, D., & Lundquist, E. (1992). On the relations between learning to
spell and learning to read. In R. Frost & L. Katz (Eds.), Orthography,
phonology, morphology, and meaning (pp. 179192). Amsterdam: NorthHolland.
Share, D.L. (1995). Phonological recoding and self-teaching: Sine qua non of
reading acquisition. Cognition, 55, 151218.
Share, D.L., & Stanovich, K.E. (1995). Cognitive processes in early reading
development: Accommodating individual differences into a model of acquisition. Issues in Education, 1, 157.
Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., Pugh, K.R., Fulbright, R.K., Constable, R.T.,
Mencl, W.E., Shankweiler, D.P., Liberman, A.M., Skudlarski, P., Fletcher,
J.M., Katz, L., Marchione, K.E., Lacadie, C., Gattenby, C., & Gore, J.C.
(1998). Functional disruption in the organization of the brain for reading
in dyslexia. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 95,
26362641.
Simos, P.G., Papanicolaou, A.C., Breier, J.I., Fletcher, J.M., Wheless, J.W.,
Maggio, W.W., Gormley, W., Constantinou, J.E.C., & Kramer, L. (2000).
Insight into brain function and neural plasticity using magnetic source
imaging. Journal of Clinical Neurophysiology, 17, 143162.
Slavin, R.E., Madden, N.A., Dolan, L.J., & Wasik, B.A. (1996). Every child,
every school: Success for all. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Small, S.L., Flores, D.K., & Noll, D.C. (1998). Different neural circuits subserve reading before and after therapy for acquired dyslexia. Brain and
Language, 62, 298308.
Smith, F. (1971). Understanding reading: A psycholinguistic analysis of reading and learning to read. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Smith, F. (1973). Psycholinguistics and reading. New York: Holt, Rinehart and
Winston.
Smith, F., & Goodman, K.S. (1971). On the psycholinguistic method of teaching reading. Elementary School Journal, 71, 177181.
Snow, C.E., Burns, M.S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Snow, C.E., Pan, B., Imbens-Bailey, A., & Herman, J. (1996). Learning how to
say what one means: A longitudinal study of childrens speech act use.
Social Development, 5, 5684.
Snowling, M. (2000). Dyslexia: A cognitive-developmental perspective. Oxford, England: Blackwell.
Soar, R.S. (1973). Accountability: Assessment problems and possibilities.
Journal of Teacher Education, 24, 205212.
Stallings, J., Robbins, P., Presbrey, L., & Scott, J. (1986). Effects of instruction
based on the Madeline Hunter model on students achievement: Findings
from a follow-through project. The Elementary School Journal, 86, 571

587.
Stanovich, K.E. (1980). Toward an interactive-compensatory model of individual differences in the development of reading fluency. Reading Research
Quarterly, 16, 3271.
Stanovich, K.E. (1986). Matthew effects in reading: Some consequences of individual differences in the acquisition of literacy. Reading Research
Quarterly, 21, 360406.
Stanovich, K.E. (2000). Progress in understanding reading: Scientific foundations and new frontiers. New York: Guilford.
Stanovich, K.E., & Cunningham, A.E. (1992). Studying the consequences of
literacy within a literate society: The cognitive correlates of print exposure. Memory & Cognition, 20, 5168.
Stanovich, K.E., Cunningham, A.E., & Cramer, B. (1984). Assessing phonological awareness in kindergarten children: Issues of task comparability.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 38, 175190.
Stanovich, K.E., Cunningham, A.E., & Feeman, D.J. (1984). Relation between
early reading acquisition and word decoding with and without context: A
longitudinal study of first-grade children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 668677.
Stanovich, K.E., Siegel, L., & Gottardo, A. (1997). Converging evidence for
phonological and surface subtypes of reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 114127.
Stanovich, K.E., & Siegel, L.S. (1994). Phenotypic performance profile of
children with reading disabilities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core variable-difference model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 2453.
Stanovich, K.E., & West, R.F. (1989). Exposure to print and orthographic processing. Reading Research Quarterly, 24, 402433.
Stein, J., & Talcott, J. (1999). Impaired neuronal timing in developmental dyslexiathe magnocellular hypothesis. Dyslexia: An International Journal
of Research and Practice, 5, 5977.
Stevenson, H.W., & Lee, S.-Y. (1990). Contexts of achievement: A study of
American, Chinese, and Japanese children. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Sticht, T.G., & James, J.H. (1984). Listening and reading. In P.D. Pearson (Ed.),
Handbook of reading research (pp. 293317). New York: Longman.
Stone, G.O., Vanhoy, M., & Van Orden, G.C. (1997). Perception is a two-way
street: Feedforward and feedback phonology in visual word recognition.
Journal of Memory and Language, 36, 337359.
Stothard, S., & Hulme, C. (1996). A comparison of reading comprehension and
decoding difficulties in children. In C. Cornoldi & J. Oakhill (Eds.),
Reading comprehension difficulties: Processes and intervention (pp. 93
Stuart, M. (1990). Factors influencing word recognition in pre-reading children. British Journal of Psychology, 81, 135146.
Stuart, M., & Coltheart, M. (1988). Does reading develop in a sequence of
stages? Cognition, 30, 139181.
Studdert-Kennedy, M. (1986). Sources of variability in early speech development. In J.S. Perkell & D.H. Klatt (Eds.), Invariance and variability in
speech processes (pp. 5884). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Sulzby, E. (1985). Childrens emergent reading of favorite storybooks: A developmental study. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 458481.
Tallal, P. (1980). Auditory temporal perception, phonics, and reading disabilities in children. Brain and Language, 9, 182198.
Tan, L.H., Spinks, J.A., Gao, J.H., Liu, H.L., Perfetti, C.A., & Fox, P.T. (2000).
Brain activation in the processing of Chinese characters and words: A
functional MRI study. Human Brain Mapping, 10, 1627.
Taylor, B.M., Anderson, R.C., Au, K.H., & Raphael, T.E. (2000). Discretion in
the translation of research to policy: A case from beginning reading. Educational Researcher, 29, 1626.
Taylor, D. (1998). Beginning to read and the spin doctors of science: The political campaign to change Americas mind about how children learn to
read. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Thompson, G.B., Cottrell, D.S., & Fletcher-Flinn, C.M. (1996). Sublexical orthographic-phonological relations early in the acquisition of reading: The
knowledge sources account. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
62, 190222.
Torgesen, J.K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions
in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 5564.
Torgesen, J.K., Wagner, R.K., Rashotte, C.A., Rose, E., Lindamood, P., Con-
73

way, T., & Garvan, C. (1999). Preventing reading failure in young children with phonological processing disabilities: Group and individual
responses to instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 579593.
Trabasso, T., & van den Broek, P. (1985). Causal thinking and the representation of narrative events. Journal of Memory and Language, 24, 612630.
Treiman, R., Mullennix, J., Bijeljac-Babic, R., & Richmond-Welty, E.D.
(1995). The special role of rimes in the description, use, and acquisition
of English orthography. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
124, 107136.
Treiman, R.A. (1993). Beginning to spell: A study of first-grade children. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Treiman, R.A., & Baron, J. (1983). Phonemic analysis training helps children
benefit from spelling-sound rules. Memory & Cognition, 11, 382389.
Treiman, R.A., & Cassar, M. (1997). Spelling acquisition in English. In C.A.
Perfetti, L. Rieben, & M. Fayol (Eds.), Learning to spell: Research, theory, and practice across languages (pp. 6180). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Treiman, R.A., Cassar, M., & Zukowski, A. (1994). What types of linguistic information do children use in spelling: The case of flaps. Child Development, 65, 13101329.
Tunmer, W.E., Herriman, M.L., & Nesdale, A.R. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and beginning reading. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 134158.
Ungerleider, L., & Mishkin, M. (1982). Two cortical visual systems. In D. Ingle, M. Goodale, & R. Mansfield (Eds.), Analysis of visual behaviour
(pp. 549586). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Van Orden, G.C. (1987). A rows is a rose: Spelling, sound, and reading. Memory & Cognition, 15, 181198.
Van Orden, G.C., Johnston, J.C., & Hale, B.L. (1988). Word identification in
reading proceeds from spelling to sound to meaning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 14, 371386.
Van Orden, G.C., Pennington, B.F., & Stone, G.O. (1990). Word identification
in reading and the promise of a subsymbolic psycholinguistics. Psychological Review, 97, 488522.
Vellutino, F.R. (1979). Dyslexia: Theory and research. Cambridge, MA: MIT
Press.
Vellutino, F.R., & Scanlon, D.M. (1991). The effects of instructional bias on
word identification. In L. Rieben & C.A. Perfetti (Eds.), Learning to
read: Basic research and its implications (pp. 189203). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
74
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., Sipay, E.R., Small, S.G., Pratt, A., Chen, R., &
Denckla, M.B. (1996). Cognitive profiles of difficult-to-remediate and
readily remediated poor readers: Early intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between cognitive and experiential deficits as basic causes of specific reading disability. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 601638.
Venezky, R.L., & Massaro, D.W. (1979). The role of orthographic regularity in
word recognition. In L.B. Resnick & P.A. Weaver (Eds.), Theories and
practice in early reading (Vol. 1, pp. 85107). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wagner, D.A. (1986). When literacy isnt reading (and vice versa). In M.E.
Wrolstad & D.F. Fisher (Eds.), Toward a new understanding of literacy
(pp. 319331). New York: Praeger.
Wagner, R.K., & Torgesen, J.K. (1987). The nature of phonological processing
and its causal role in the acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin, 101, 192212.
Weaver, C. (1994). Reading process and practice: From socio-psycholinguistics to whole language. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Werker, J.F., & Lalonde, C.E. (1988). Cross-language speech perception: Initial capabilities and developmental change. Developmental Psychology,
24, 672683.
Werker, J.F., & Tees, R.C. (1987). Speech perception in severely disabled and
average reading children. Canadian Journal of Psychology, 41, 4861.
Wheeler, D.D. (1970). Processes in word recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 1,
5985.
White, T.G., Graves, M.F., & Slater, W.H. (1990). Growth of reading vocabulary in diverse elementary schools: Decoding and word meaning. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 82, 281290.
Whole Language Umbrella. (2000, April 24). Our beliefs. Retrieved October 3,
2001, from http://www.ncte.org/wlu/beliefs.shtml
Williams, J.P. (1980). Teaching decoding with an emphasis on phonemic analysis and phoneme blending. Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 115.
Willows, D.M., Kruk, R.S., & Corcos, E. (Eds.). (1993). Visual processes in
reading and reading disabilities. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Wise, B.W., Ring, J., & Olson, R.K. (1999). Training phonological awareness
with and without attention to articulation. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 72, 271304.
Yuill, N., & Oakhill, J. (1991). Childrens problems in text comprehension: An
experimental investigation. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University
Press.

How Psych Sci Informs Teaching of Reading - Rayner Et Al.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Description:

Copyright:

Available Formats

How Psych Sci Informs Teaching of Reading - Rayner Et Al.

Original Title:

Uploaded by

Description:

Copyright:

Available Formats

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

HOW PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE INFORMS

4. Appropriate educational practices: What are the best ways

Learning to read presents a paradox. For an adult who is a

1. The starting point: What are the preconditions for learning

These are the central topics with which we are concerned in

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

How Psychological Science Informs the Teaching of Reading

Kana, the graphic units correspond to syllables. Systems whose

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

K. Rayner, B.R. Foorman, C.A. Perfetti, D. Pesetsky, and M.S. Seidenberg

cause they are abstractions rather than natural physical segments

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

How Psychological Science Informs the Teaching of Reading

THE DEVELOPMENT OF READING SKILL

the conversion of written forms into spoken language forms.

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

K. Rayner, B.R. Foorman, C.A. Perfetti, D. Pesetsky, and M.S. Seidenberg

fined throughout development. The process starts early, with

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

How Psychological Science Informs the Teaching of Reading

Reading readiness and emergent literacy

A learning perspective on learning to read

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

K. Rayner, B.R. Foorman, C.A. Perfetti, D. Pesetsky, and M.S. Seidenberg

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

How Psychological Science Informs the Teaching of Reading

letters. This suggests that attending to all the letters of a word is

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

K. Rayner, B.R. Foorman, C.A. Perfetti, D. Pesetsky, and M.S. Seidenberg

A nonstage incremental theory

have specific letters in their correct positions (i.e., increased

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

How Psychological Science Informs the Teaching of Reading

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

K. Rayner, B.R. Foorman, C.A. Perfetti, D. Pesetsky, and M.S. Seidenberg

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

How Psychological Science Informs the Teaching of Reading

Fig. 3. The spelling-reading relationship. Both processes use a lexical

as terrible spellers. Spelling is typically more difficult than

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

K. Rayner, B.R. Foorman, C.A. Perfetti, D. Pesetsky, and M.S. Seidenberg

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

How Psychological Science Informs the Teaching of Reading

ment, or developmental dysphasia (Joanisse et al., 2000; Tallal,

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

K. Rayner, B.R. Foorman, C.A. Perfetti, D. Pesetsky, and M.S. Seidenberg

discussing research from cognitive psychology and then move

The View From Cognitive Psychology

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

How Psychological Science Informs the Teaching of Reading

Fig. 4. Examples of eye-contingent display-change paradigms. The

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

K. Rayner, B.R. Foorman, C.A. Perfetti, D. Pesetsky, and M.S. Seidenberg

nonword conditions, the letter that had been previously shown

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST

How Psychological Science Informs the Teaching of Reading

Fig. 7. A simple dual-route model of word recognition. The arrow

PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST